Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

125 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai832 Delhi618 Ahmedabad253 Jaipur230 Kolkata147 Chennai125 Bangalore116 Surat109 Karnataka103 Indore87 Hyderabad70 Pune67 Raipur47 Chandigarh44 Calcutta34 Visakhapatnam28 Nagpur23 Rajkot23 Ranchi20 Agra12 Amritsar11 Lucknow11 Cuttack9 Dehradun8 Guwahati5 Panaji5 Cochin5 Jodhpur4 Telangana3 Jabalpur3 Patna3 Allahabad1 Rajasthan1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 234E135 Section 200A69 Section 271(1)(c)59 Addition to Income34 Section 200(3)32 TDS32 Penalty32 Section 143(3)29 Section 206C(3)

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 54F

short term capital gains and accepted by the assessee cannot be a valid reason for levy of penalty u/s. 271

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

22

Capital Gains18

Charitable Trust17

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short-term capital gains under the provisions of section 55(2)(a) (ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order was completed. 3.5 The Assessing Officer also examined the accounts of the sister concern M/s. Pentafour Technologies Ltd. As against the total consideration paid by it, ₹.626,08,80,282/- was accounted under ‘fixed assets' towards goodwill on acquisition

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Term Capital Gains of Rs.40.33 Crores and raised certain demand against the assessee. This assessment has reached finality. 2.2 Against quantum addition, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and the assessee was show-caused. The assessee assailed the same on the ground that the assessee had purchased the shares through Ventura Securities Ltd., Mumbai utilizing the funds lying

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

short) was conducted in the residential premises of Shri.V.Natarajan at 64-C, Rotary Nagar, Rasipuram and simultaneously the search u/s 132 of the Act was also carried out in the premises of M/s Pavai Varam Educational Trust on 27.12.2016. The search u/s 132 of the Act was commenced at 11.45 AM on 27.12.2016 and the search proceedings u/s

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

short) was conducted in the residential premises of Shri.V.Natarajan at 64-C, Rotary Nagar, Rasipuram and simultaneously the search u/s 132 of the Act was also carried out in the premises of M/s Pavai Varam Educational Trust on 27.12.2016. The search u/s 132 of the Act was commenced at 11.45 AM on 27.12.2016 and the search proceedings u/s

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal

DCIT, CC-3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. VICOANS INFRSTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3170/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3170/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Dy. Commissioner Of- M/S.Vicoans Infrastructure Income Tax, Environmental Engineering Corporate Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No.39, 1St Cross Street, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. [Pan:Aaccv 4087 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

term capital gain escaping assessment to Rs.6.39 crores. Both the assessee and the Department accepted the CIT(A)'s order and thus the assessment becoming final. Accordingly, the penalty proceeding initiated was concluded by the Assessing officer by imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,92 (approx.) being 100% of tax which had escaped assessment consequent

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 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

short “the Act“), was conducted at the premise of the assessee on 06.12.2018. During the course of search, a sum of Rs.55,27,70,000/- of unaccounted cash was found and seized from the residential premise of Shri M.Kothandarami Reddy as well as six individuals who identified themselves as associates of the assessee and claimed that they have held

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

short “the Act“), was conducted at the premise of the assessee on 06.12.2018. During the course of search, a sum of Rs.55,27,70,000/- of unaccounted cash was found and seized from the residential premise of Shri M.Kothandarami Reddy as well as six individuals who identified themselves as associates of the assessee and claimed that they have held

KANNAN PREMKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3167/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty. The assessee submitted his reply vide letter dated 11.05.2021. However, submissions of the assessee was rejected and that the AO imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.40,125/- for concealment of income on the short term capital gains which was brought to tax in the reassessment

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

Short-Term Capital Gains on land for Rs.3107.20 Lacs. 3.2 Subsequent to framing of assessment, penalty proceedings were initiated against the issue and initial show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

MR. M. GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) which was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai through his order dated 21.06.2016. 2. Facts apropos are that assessee had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income from salary, house property and business. During

PRAMILA PATEL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1827/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1827/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pramila Patel, No.27, Gnt Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(3) Puzhal, Chennai. Chennai 600 066. [Pan Aeipp 1044H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT

short) dated 28.02.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010. ITA No.1827 /2019 :- 2 -: The brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The appellant is an individual. The return of income for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 25.03.2010 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,76,750/-. Subsequently based on the information received from DDIT (Inv) unit

MOHAMED AKBAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

short, the Act). Several notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued from time to time to substantiate the claim of deduction made U/s 54 of the Act. However, the assessee did not reply to the said notices despite giving 2 ITA1909/Chny/2025 Mohamed Akbar Vs ITO several opportunities. The Assessing Officer, therefore, passed the assessment order under Section

N.BASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 16, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT, DR

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28l

capital gains in the sum of `22,00,998/- on the ground that the assessee would be eligible for the penalty in terms of Explanation 3 ITA No.2104/Mds./2017 :- 3 -: to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

KANCHANA BAI CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CW 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

term capital gains tax by treating the period for which the capital asset in question was held by the previous owner as the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, the indexed cost of acquisition has also to be determined on the very same basis. 24. In the result, we hold that the ITAT was justified

KANCHAN BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

term capital gains tax by treating the period for which the capital asset in question was held by the previous owner as the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, the indexed cost of acquisition has also to be determined on the very same basis. 24. In the result, we hold that the ITAT was justified

SAJEETHA BANU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1946/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1946/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

term capital gains on sale of land claimed as agricultural land Rs.1,86,605/-. (ii) Addition on account of unproved agricultural income of Rs.5.00 lakhs (iii) Addition on account of undisclosed amount Rs.3,63,379/-. 3.0 The AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c). During the penalty proceedings, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee and the assessee