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.

123 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,114Mumbai968Ahmedabad254Jaipur215Bangalore196Kolkata133Hyderabad128Chennai123Karnataka123Raipur114Indore105Pune93Chandigarh64Lucknow55Surat49Amritsar47Allahabad44Cochin41Calcutta34Visakhapatnam30Nagpur22Rajkot18Cuttack14Kerala14Patna13Agra10Dehradun9Guwahati9Jodhpur7Panaji6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 271D54Section 40A(3)45Section 234E36Section 246A33Penalty33Disallowance27Section 143(3)25Section 147

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

90,75,000/- paid for the relevant period from 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 was added back to the total income treating it as unexplained interest/cash payments. 5. Thereafter, since the payment of interest in cash was in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, the Assessing Officer moved similar proposal for levy of penalty u/s 271E. A show

Showing 1–20 of 123 · Page 1 of 7

24
Section 269S22
Section 14821
Survey u/s 133A13

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

90,75,000/- paid for the relevant period from 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 was added back to the total income treating it as unexplained interest/cash payments. 5. Thereafter, since the payment of interest in cash was in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, the Assessing Officer moved similar proposal for levy of penalty u/s 271E. A show

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

90,75,000/- paid for the relevant period from 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 was added back to the total income treating it as unexplained interest/cash payments. 5. Thereafter, since the payment of interest in cash was in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, the Assessing Officer moved similar proposal for levy of penalty u/s 271E. A show

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

90,75,000/- paid for the relevant period from 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 was added back to the total income treating it as unexplained interest/cash payments. 5. Thereafter, since the payment of interest in cash was in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, the Assessing Officer moved similar proposal for levy of penalty u/s 271E. A show

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1345/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

90,000. 5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

90,000. 5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1346/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

90,000. 5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 869/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 132Section 271ASection 69A

90 thousand to 1.80 Lakhs per day except all Sundays and holidays or leave. The entire collection with split up comes to my residence at night. Major amount is deposited in the Bank of Baroda CARDIO DIAGNOSTIC CARE account and the rest of the amount is accumulated over a long period to meet out the prospectively planned multispecialty hospital

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 868/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 132Section 271ASection 69A

90 thousand to 1.80 Lakhs per day except all Sundays and holidays or leave. The entire collection with split up comes to my residence at night. Major amount is deposited in the Bank of Baroda CARDIO DIAGNOSTIC CARE account and the rest of the amount is accumulated over a long period to meet out the prospectively planned multispecialty hospital

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

90,47,288 3600 200 5 Rs 8069/gm 2800/gm 2 2016-17 5,88,08,603 7,600 288 Rs 6422/gm 3049/gm 3 2017-18 5,16,05,371 9,173 Rs.5626/ gm 2976/gm 10. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A' submitted the value of gold jewellery gifted by ‘A's mother to her grandchildren (minor daughters

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3257/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 3258/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2849/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 147Section 246A

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances

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

90 ITR 332 (Guj). 8. It went further to add “that denial of liability to be assessed may be in respect of the whole income or any part of the income. It may be based on any ground, whether of fact or of law, and it may be total denial of liability or denial of liability under particular circumstances