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.

16 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82Delhi69Jaipur41Indore25Hyderabad24Bangalore24Pune20Chennai16Kolkata13Ahmedabad10Visakhapatnam10Cochin6Cuttack4Lucknow3Nagpur2Chandigarh2Amritsar2Surat2Rajkot1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271D100Section 269S44Section 271E25Section 269T19Penalty16Section 143(3)15Section 275(1)(c)12Limitation/Time-bar10Addition to Income9

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

269T of the 4 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Act, the appropriate Officer levied 100% penalty under section 271E of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act as well as section 271E of the Act. After considering

Section 2718
Section 2745
Cash Deposit2

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

269T of the 4 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Act, the appropriate Officer levied 100% penalty under section 271E of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act as well as section 271E of the Act. After considering

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

269T of the 4 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Act, the appropriate Officer levied 100% penalty under section 271E of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act as well as section 271E of the Act. After considering

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

269T of the 4 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Act, the appropriate Officer levied 100% penalty under section 271E of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act as well as section 271E of the Act. After considering

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1345/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under ss. 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under ss. 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1346/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under ss. 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore

SRI SANKARANARAYANAN KRISHNAMOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 271D

269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra}, Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the assessment proceeding? In the facts of that case, it was found that the penalty order was issued following

M/S. SHRI SHI vs. HAKTHI FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-3,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 153CSection 269SSection 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra}, Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the assessment proceeding? In the facts of that case, it was found that the penalty order was issued following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE- vs. AKMG ALLOYS PRIVATE LTD.,, DINDIGUL

In the result, Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA 873/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement –
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra}, Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the assessment proceeding? In the facts of that case, it was found that the penalty order was issued following

MUTHUSAMY NAGARAJ,ERODE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERODE RANGE ERODE

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

ITA 2878/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Ms.R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra}, Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the assessment proceeding? In the facts of that case, it was found that the penalty order was issued following

SILUVAIKANI CHELLIAH,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(6),, TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Dr. CA. Abhishek MuraliFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

u/s 271D for violating section 269SS held as under: “22. From an analysis of Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, it is seen that both the provisions are pari materia to each other. While Section 271D of the Act would be attracted on a person accepting loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of Section 269SS

BOOMI BOTTLING GAS,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.Ponraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

271-E of the Act, i.e., for contravention of sections 269SS and 269T respectively, analyzed, examining them on the anvil of reasonableness. Finally, only transactions of repayment in cash, aggregating to Rs. 7,82,347/-, were considered as not proved to be occasioned or necessitated by a reasonable cause so as to save penalty u/s

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

271 E cannot be sustained on the facts obtaining in the case where primarily the transactions not being loan or deposits are through current a/c and between the appellant and its managing director. The AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271E & 271E.” ITA No.1761 & 1762/Mds/2017 6. Before us the Ld.DR argued in support of the order

SHRI SAI BALAJI GAS CYLINDERS P. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CORPORATE CIRLCE-6,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271 E and hence the same is illegal and liable to be quashed ab initio. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s.271 E to the tune of Rs.58,43,890/-. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the provisions of Section 269T

SHRI SAI BALAJI GAS CYLINDERS P. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CORPORATE CIRLCE-6,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3222/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 269TSection 271Section 271D

u/s 271 E and hence the same is illegal and liable to be quashed ab initio. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s.271 E to the tune of Rs.58,43,890/-. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the provisions of Section 269T