BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

30 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore56Indore45Delhi43Cochin40Mumbai35Surat32Chennai30Jaipur28Hyderabad24Kolkata16Amritsar13Rajkot13Visakhapatnam8Pune8Ahmedabad7Allahabad4Jabalpur4Guwahati3Nagpur3Agra2Raipur2Chandigarh2Cuttack2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)56Section 153C36Section 142(1)36Section 272A(1)(d)35Section 271(1)(c)33Section 153A33Penalty30Section 13222Section 143(2)

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2207/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 271A

Section 273B of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) had looked into irrelevant circumstances for deleting the levy of penalty in the instant case forgetting the fact that the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is automatic in nature as per the plain reading of the provisions of the Act. Hence, we hold that

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

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

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

17
Addition to Income11
Undisclosed Income6
Natural Justice4
ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
14 Aug 2024
AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\n7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed.\n8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section\n153D of the Income Tax Act.\nFrom the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior\napproval

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 273B). Levy 60% is statutory and mandatory in such cases. The notice issued clearly states the penalty and there were no limbs to be striked off. It is further submitted that the notice issued under section :- 14 -: 271AAB clearly mention the section of the penalty. Section 271AAB does not operate on multiple "limbs" as under section 271

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

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

penalty u/s 271 D of the Act. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 64/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 61/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 66/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 60/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

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

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

273B of the Act and further ought to have appreciated that the discretion vested with the Assessing Officer for passing/not passing the penalty order was not exercised properly/ independently, thereby vitiating the impugned order in its entirety. 10. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order

GOODWILL TEAM PAPERS LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271BSection 44A

271 B of the Act. I have gone the written submission and penalty order carefully. As the fact, the appellant did not file the audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, though the appellant had sale consideration of Rs. 10,05,74,574/- during the A.Y. 2017-18. The appellant submitted that due to continuous losses, frequent disruptions of production

AMMAN SPINTEX,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I

273B of the Act, considering the unique circumstances of the instant case.” 3. The effective ground of appeal is against confirming the order of A.O in levying penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for misreporting of income. ITA Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: 4. The assessee has filed return of income on 29.10.2018 by declaring total income

M/S. RSV SKIN & LASER CENTRE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 1(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1723/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271

SHRI. VEDAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENATRAL CIRCLE 1(4). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1711/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271

SHRI. VEDAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CRICLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1712/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271

SHRI. VEDAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CRICLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1713/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271

SHRI. VEDAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CRICLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1714/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271

DR. VEDAMURTHY MAYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CRICLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1715/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

u/s. Assessee’s name Year 1711/Chny/2025 2015-16 271(1)(b) of the Act 1712/Chny/2025 2016-17 271(1)(b) of the Act Shri Vedamurthy 1713/Chny/2025 2017-18 272A(1)(d) of the Act 1714/Chny/2025 2018-19 272A(1)(d) of the Act 271(1)(b) of the Act 1715/Chny/2025 2012-13 1716/Chny/2025 2013-14 271