BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 183clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi331Mumbai186Karnataka100Bangalore89Raipur52Jaipur42Ahmedabad36Pune26Indore25Allahabad23Chennai23Hyderabad22Chandigarh20Kolkata20Rajkot18Lucknow14Nagpur12Surat9Agra8Patna6Cuttack5Dehradun5Amritsar3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Telangana2Visakhapatnam1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)65Section 27424Penalty20Section 27118Addition to Income16Disallowance12Section 13210Section 153A10Section 271(1)(C)

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 143(3)6
Section 685
Natural Justice2
ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 907/CHNY/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 908/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 906/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 905/CHNY/2020[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 573/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for ‘have concealed the particulars of your income or ….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars

R.PALANISAMY,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1211/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

183/-. The become final. The AO levied the penalty on unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.80,88,481/- and brought forward business loss of Rs.15,67,196/-. The AO noted that that the claim of assessee on both the accounts is not allowable as it is a wrong claim and for this, he recorded the finding in para

B.H.KOTHARI, REP BY L/H NINA B.KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3543/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act is a valid notice, and therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable". In the instant case, the assessee never raised this issue neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision

B.H.KOTHARI, REP BY L/H NINA B.KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3542/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act is a valid notice, and therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable". In the instant case, the assessee never raised this issue neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision

TH 130 M/S BHARATHIYAR PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

183. Salem. PAN : AAAAB 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20.09.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal

MALAR SIVAKUMAR,,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (4),, SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1934/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No: 1934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Malar Sivakumar Income Tax Officer, Selvakumar Sago Factory, V. Ward -1(4), 136A Manickavasagar Street, Salem. Fairlands, Salem – 636 016. [Pan: Ajepm-1809-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A.S. Sumanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sumanth, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

183[All]; 94 TTR 154 [All] ;77 ITD 340 [Chd] and ITA No: 5046/Del/2012 dt.10/05/2013. 5. While the learned CIT (A), in confirming the addition of Rs.4,93,360/- in the quantum appeal-copy of the appellate order is enclosed-gave a finding that the assessee has not made any efforts to locate he whereabouts of the trade creditors

KAMALAKANNAN P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BW XV(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.B.Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 68BSection 69Section 69B

183/- and thereby, adding this amount of Rs.10,98,274/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved against quantum addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.35/2014-15/2011- 12/CIT(A)-4 dated 14.10.2015, confirmed the addition of cash deposit added by the AO u/s.68