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.

683 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,484Mumbai4,854Ahmedabad1,295Kolkata1,142Jaipur953Bangalore876Pune858Chennai683Indore674Surat543Hyderabad502Chandigarh408Rajkot271Amritsar239Raipur237Cochin177Lucknow175Visakhapatnam175Karnataka161Nagpur146Cuttack144Agra113Patna102Allahabad97Ranchi90Dehradun86Guwahati80Jabalpur65Jodhpur52Panaji44Calcutta39Varanasi21Kerala18SC13Telangana9Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)101Penalty73Addition to Income52Section 14846Section 14739Section 143(3)30Section 27426Section 14A26Section 271D

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received a sum of Rs.17,00,00,000/- as loan on various dates from Shri Anbuchezhiyan. The receipts of loan by way of cash was in violation of section

Showing 1–20 of 683 · Page 1 of 35

...
26
Section 271B24
Disallowance20
Limitation/Time-bar13

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received a sum of Rs.17,00,00,000/- as loan on various dates from Shri Anbuchezhiyan. The receipts of loan by way of cash was in violation of section

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received a sum of Rs.17,00,00,000/- as loan on various dates from Shri Anbuchezhiyan. The receipts of loan by way of cash was in violation of section

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received a sum of Rs.17,00,00,000/- as loan on various dates from Shri Anbuchezhiyan. The receipts of loan by way of cash was in violation of section

THE CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD ,TRICHY vs. CIT , CPC , TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 807/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D S HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIITED,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 330/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 405/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D S HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIITED,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 331/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D S HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIITED,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 329/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 407/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 406/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 249/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S. SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 246/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTUIONS COMPANY P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 245/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 254/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 251/CHNY/2022[2014-15 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 256/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 252/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 248/CHNY/2022[214-15(244Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 255/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3