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.

90 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 35(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi876Mumbai710Jaipur249Bangalore221Ahmedabad175Karnataka125Indore118Chennai90Hyderabad87Chandigarh74Kolkata70Raipur60Pune57Lucknow36Calcutta35Surat34Visakhapatnam31Rajkot29Amritsar25Agra17Cuttack14Kerala14Allahabad11Panaji10Dehradun10Cochin10Nagpur9Guwahati7Patna7Ranchi6SC6Telangana3Jodhpur1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 40A(3)51Section 271(1)(c)45Disallowance38Section 246A33Section 14725Section 14A25Section 270A25Penalty

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 2(22)(e)24
Section 13219
Reopening of Assessment12
ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 907/CHNY/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 908/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 906/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1999-2000

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 905/CHNY/2020[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

35,22,069 1,36,09,059 47,41,000 2002-03 1,05,220 2,73,62,800 2,74,68,020 83,70,000 2003-04 1,12,930 2,67,26,350 2,68,39,280 84,20,000 2004-05 1

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1276/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact charge i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars income, it was seen that assessment proceedings were concluded after detailed discussion with the assessee. The assessee was in real estate business and it would be too far-fetched to believe that income from transfer of land was claimed as exempt

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 573/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3252/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3250/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3256/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also

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

35 the appeal is made against order u/s 147 and not against any pre-assessment order as the AR characterizes it and therefore the authorities he has placed reliance on in the foregoing para does not come to his aid here. 10. After having carefully gone through the undisputed / uncontroverted facts marshalled and presented by the AO/AR as also