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.

49 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 251(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi437Mumbai312Karnataka109Jaipur100Indore85Ahmedabad80Raipur74Hyderabad64Bangalore59Kolkata51Chennai49Chandigarh44Pune37Allahabad20Lucknow17Rajkot16Cochin15Surat15Nagpur11Patna11Dehradun10Agra10Guwahati7Jabalpur6Jodhpur4Amritsar4Telangana2Varanasi2Rajasthan1Ranchi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)39Addition to Income36Section 271(1)(c)35Section 2(22)(e)20Penalty20Section 271B16Section 26411Section 40A(3)11Cash Deposit

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3

u/s 271(1)(c). In this regard we rely on the Supreme Court order dt. 17.03.2010 in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. We pray that, as our case does not attract levy of penalty, the proceedings may be dropped.” 15. During the course of penalty proceedings, by considering the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

11
Survey u/s 133A10
Deemed Dividend10
Section 44A9

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1615/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1622/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1620/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1614/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1616/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1617/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1619/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1618/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1621/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

271 4,08,21,080 1,35,37,844 1,15,33,972 2010-11 1,03,35,401 2,46,58,065 2,12,06,746 51,08,161 2011-12 1,10,57,253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held

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

251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has given reply but failed to substantiate the excess land cost debited on account of payments made to its holding company EID Parry India Ltd. and to one of its group entity TII, excess cost of construction paid to one of its group concern CECL consultancy fees paid to Mahavir

AHAMEDSAIB BABU,VELLORE vs. ITO, VELLORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case there is a difference in estimating the income of the assessee by the assessee itself and by the Department. Being so, the difference is only on account of difference in opinion in determining the income. That difference in opinion among the parties cannot result in levy of penalty

AHAMEDSAIB BABU,VELLORE vs. ITO, VELLORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Manohar Doss,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.R
Section 139(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case there is a difference in estimating the income of the assessee by the assessee itself and by the Department. Being so, the difference is only on account of difference in opinion in determining the income. That difference in opinion among the parties cannot result in levy of penalty

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,57,301/-levied U/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. 3. This was a search case and in the course of search operations, the appellants father had admitted that the entire income had arisen from the real estate operations and offered the entire income

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,57,301/-levied U/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. 3. This was a search case and in the course of search operations, the appellants father had admitted that the entire income had arisen from the real estate operations and offered the entire income

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,57,301/-levied U/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. 3. This was a search case and in the course of search operations, the appellants father had admitted that the entire income had arisen from the real estate operations and offered the entire income

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date