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 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai134Delhi126Indore101Jaipur65Bangalore65Hyderabad51Chennai49Pune27Kolkata26Visakhapatnam24Karnataka23Lucknow21Ahmedabad19Cochin11Rajkot7Nagpur6Amritsar6Chandigarh5Panaji5Raipur3Cuttack3Surat2Jodhpur1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Agra1SC1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271D121Section 269S58Section 14735Penalty35Section 246A33Section 271A29Section 143(3)26Section 271E25Addition to Income24Section 269T

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

u/s 271D to the assessee after\nexpiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which penalty was\ninitiated through assessment order and passed penalty order within 6\nmonths from date of such notice. Having regard to the provisions of\nsections 271D and 271E, the order was held to be barred by limitation\nand penalty imposed was quashed

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

19
Reopening of Assessment13
Limitation/Time-bar12
ITAT Chennai
13 Mar 2024
AY 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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s 271E has been followed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court

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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s 271E has been followed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court

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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s 271E has been followed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court

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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s 271E has been followed by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court

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

271D, section 27IE, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271 GB, section 271IL, section 271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) 271A, section 271AM, section 27IB, section 271BA, section 271FAB, section 271 FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

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

271D, section 27IE, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271 GB, section 271IL, section 271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) 271A, section 271AM, section 27IB, section 271BA, section 271FAB, section 271 FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

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

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

271D, section 27IE, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271 GB, section 271IL, section 271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) 271A, section 271AM, section 27IB, section 271BA, section 271FAB, section 271 FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

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)

271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding

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)

271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding

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)

271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding

THAMIRA GREEN FARMS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT CORPORATE RANGE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1845/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Thamira Green Farm P The Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1824/4, Gautham Corporate Range -3, Apartments, 1St Floor, Chennai. 18Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aacct-7926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

271 D of the Act. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 273B of the Act were completely missed while considering the necessity and compulsion for entering into the transaction with the Director/share holder and ought to have appreciated that the penalty under consideration for any violation of the provisions of section 269SS

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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) while deciding similar legal issue regarding levy of penalty u/s 271D

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

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) while deciding similar legal issue regarding levy of penalty u/s 271D

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

271 E in interpreting the provisions. 4.5 The ld. Departmental Representative submitted CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that when no limitation had been incorporated into the statute for initiation of penalty under section 271D, it cannot be held that initiation of penalty proceedings by the Joint Commissioner is barred. 4.6. The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that

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

u/s 271D also. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted 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

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

u/s 271D also. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted as under: Muthusamy Nagaraj :: 5 :: 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

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

AA522 KUNNATHUR VELAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3133/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 80P

u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The A.O passed AA522 Kunnathur Velampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :- 3 -: the penalty order levying a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each of the default). Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3253/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing