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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 196clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi287Mumbai208Karnataka99Jaipur59Bangalore49Ahmedabad45Raipur36Calcutta34Chandigarh32Kolkata28Hyderabad15Cochin13Lucknow12Chennai10Surat8Indore8Agra7Guwahati5Pune4Dehradun3Visakhapatnam2Nagpur2Rajkot1SC1Rajasthan1Telangana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271A29Section 143(3)15Section 271(1)(c)13Section 271D8Penalty8Addition to Income6Section 1323Section 693Section 269S

NARENDRA C. MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 287/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

penalty of (a)10% if the taxpayer admits the undisclosed income u/s 132(4) ; substantiates the manner of earning such undisclosed income and files return of income before the specified date and pays tax;(b) (a)20% if the taxpayer does not admit undisclosed income u/s 132(4); discloses such undisclosed income and files return of income within

SIDDHARTH N MAHER,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

3
Unexplained Investment3
Search & Seizure3
Undisclosed Income3

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 289/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

penalty of (a)10% if the taxpayer admits the undisclosed income u/s 132(4) ; substantiates the manner of earning such undisclosed income and files return of income before the specified date and pays tax;(b) (a)20% if the taxpayer does not admit undisclosed income u/s 132(4); discloses such undisclosed income and files return of income within

MAHENDRA KANCHANLAL MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 288/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

penalty of (a)10% if the taxpayer admits the undisclosed income u/s 132(4) ; substantiates the manner of earning such undisclosed income and files return of income before the specified date and pays tax;(b) (a)20% if the taxpayer does not admit undisclosed income u/s 132(4); discloses such undisclosed income and files return of income within

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. S.ARUN KUMAR, RAJAPALAYAM

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

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

196(Kerala), wherein it is held that in the absence of business exigency to avail cash loan, such transaction would not come under exception clause of section 271D. 4.2 Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has taken loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft from four persons though such persons have bank accounts. 4.3 The ld. Departmental Representative submitted

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)

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 6 of penalty order as under:- “6. On careful consideration of the issues involved and the material evidence placed on record, I am of the opinion that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR. GANESAN'S HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

196 (Kerala) wherein it was held that, when there is no material to infer the receipts and payments from the partners of the firm/sister concerns were anything other than loans or deposits then penalty shall be attracted U/s.269SS & 269T of the Act. The Ld.ACIT further observed that in the case of the assessee there was no agreement between the Director

SEOYON E-HWA SUMMIT AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Lalit Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr.I. Roopa, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43A

u/s 143(3) passed by the AO dated 05.02.2013, the AO didn’t record any satisfaction about levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was challenged by the assessee before Ld CIT(A) & finally before this Tribunal; and the Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2018 was pleased to confirm the action of the AO (i) disallowing Rs.10

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) pf the Act that an adjustment which has resulted from a mere difference of opinion between the learned AO / Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the Appellant. 8.2 The AO failed to appreciate that the Appellant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and therefore it was not a case of deemed concealment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AUTONEUM NITTOKU SOUND PROOF PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1956/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 1956/Mds/2016 अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Autoneum Nittoku Sound Proof Tax, Vs. Products India Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), Plot No. Rns 15, Sipcot Industrial Chennai - 600 034. Growth Centre, Oragadam, Vadakupattu Post, Kanchipuram, 603 204. [Pan: Aaecr 1409H]

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 92D(1)

section 115JB of the Act with a loss of Rs. 84,48,950/- and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the details. The Assessing Officer made

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the additions made to the tune of Rs.45,91,25,185/- by way of enhancement to the income returned. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are therefore, initiated on both counts viz., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before