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.

18 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi158Mumbai97Jaipur72Indore72Bangalore65Ahmedabad42Rajkot36Surat29Karnataka23Amritsar22Cuttack19Pune18Chennai18Chandigarh15Visakhapatnam13Nagpur12Lucknow11Hyderabad9Kolkata8Jabalpur6Panaji5Raipur4Patna3Guwahati3Allahabad2Cochin1SC1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271A52Penalty18Addition to Income15Section 14714Section 13210Section 40A(3)10Section 1449Section 273B8Section 271(1)(b)

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

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 or sub-section

8
Section 142(1)7
Undisclosed Income7
Disallowance5

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

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 or sub-section

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

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 or sub-section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2534/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 271A

section 271. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that besides penalty u/s 271F, Ld. AO has proposed

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2535/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

section 271. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that besides penalty u/s 271F, Ld. AO has proposed

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2536/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

section 271. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that besides penalty u/s 271F, Ld. AO has proposed

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

ITA 2537/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Sidhappaji (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 14ASection 271A

section 271. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that besides penalty u/s 271F, Ld. AO has proposed

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

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2083/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

For Appellant: Ms. Veni Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273

u/s 271C, in so far as these defaults are concerned, is not called for and delete portion of the penalty pertaining to these defaults. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 5.1 The substance of the issue is whether the assessee is in default and liable for penal proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the expenditures as detailed hereinabove

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

u/s. 273- B of the Act, which reads as under: Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. ‘273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 60/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 253(2)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 5

271, section 271A, 34[section 271AA,] section 271B 34[, section 271BA], 35[section 271BB,] section 271C, M/s. Maheshwari Builders 8 AY: 2014-15 36[section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 37[section 271F, 38[section 271FA,] 39[section 271FB,] 40[section 271G,]] 41[section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3398/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

u/s. 44AB of the Act alongwith return of income on 31.03.2013. The reason cited by the assessee for delay in conducting the audit was as under:- ‘’ My accountant had suddenly resigned and left without notice during the month of August, 2012 (financial year 11-12/Asst. Year 12-13). I had to engage a new account and compile

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3397/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

u/s. 44AB of the Act alongwith return of income on 31.03.2013. The reason cited by the assessee for delay in conducting the audit was as under:- ‘’ My accountant had suddenly resigned and left without notice during the month of August, 2012 (financial year 11-12/Asst. Year 12-13). I had to engage a new account and compile

SHALINI SANJEEVI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 768/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the imposition of both the penalties. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the both penalties. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was absent from India continuously on account

SHALINI SANJEEVI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 769/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the imposition of both the penalties. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the both penalties. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was absent from India continuously on account

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271F

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271F

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 968/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271F