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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 276C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi58Mumbai51Pune15Jaipur12Kolkata12Ahmedabad8Lucknow7Chennai6Patna6Agra5Karnataka3Chandigarh2Rajkot2Ranchi2SC2Indore2Hyderabad2Telangana1Panaji1Bangalore1Amritsar1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)12Section 143(3)5Section 1485Penalty5Exemption4Section 1473

V.K.C.JAYAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sendamarai KannanFor Respondent: Mr.V.Sreehdhar,JCIT,D.R
Section 271(1)(C)Section 274

u/s 274 read with sec 271 (c) Of the Income tax Act 1961-Reg. With reference to the above I wish to submit the following for your consideration. I have not willfully concealed the particulars of Income. Or furnished inaccurate particulars of Income etc., for the above said Assessment Year. ITA No.1876 /chny/2017 :- 6 -: I believed that my accountant

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year 2011- 12 and Rs.5.50 crores for assessment year 2012-13 by observing in paras

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year 2011- 12 and Rs.5.50 crores for assessment year 2012-13 by observing in paras

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year 2011- 12 and Rs.5.50 crores for assessment year 2012-13 by observing in paras

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year 2011- 12 and Rs.5.50 crores for assessment year 2012-13 by observing in paras

ANTHONYMUTHU UDAYAR XAVIER,SIVAGANGA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

Section 276C(1) of IT Act. The relevant clause of the said circular is reproduced as under: - "(iii) Offences u/s 276C(1): Wilful attempt to evade taxes All cases where penalty u/s 271