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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80P(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore21Cochin20Delhi15Jaipur11Visakhapatnam11Amritsar10Chandigarh9Mumbai9Chennai6Indore6Varanasi6Ahmedabad5Lucknow5Surat4Pune3Nagpur3Rajkot2Jodhpur2Panaji1Guwahati1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 80P14Deduction6Penalty5Section 271(1)(C)4Section 143(3)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 564Section 574Section 2634

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

80P of the Act. The A.O initiated penalty proceedings 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

Exemption4
Disallowance4
Section 272A(1)(d)3

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2741/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 2742/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2743/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

271(1) (c) of the Act was also legal. \" (p. 787)\n7. Addl. CIT v. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad [1993] 200 ITR 206 (All.) \"Held, that the\nlevy of penalty was based on the addition to income made by the Income-tax\nOfficer. The addition was deleted by the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal was justified\nin cancelling the penalty