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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai457Delhi381Jaipur153Ahmedabad144Chennai134Hyderabad103Bangalore81Pune66Kolkata65Indore63Raipur54Surat41Chandigarh40Visakhapatnam34Lucknow29Nagpur24Ranchi24Rajkot22Agra16Patna14Amritsar10Jodhpur10Cuttack10Dehradun9Cochin8Guwahati6Jabalpur4Allahabad3Panaji2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)25Penalty8Section 2747Addition to Income7Section 143(3)5Section 1485Section 80H5Section 139(1)5Section 271

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a partner in 22 firms and is also a Director of two private limited companies. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income

5
Section 153A4
Deduction2

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). Every omission/concealment does not attract the rigour of s. 271(1)(c). It must be deliberate and intentional Page 4 of 7 being in the knowledge of the assessee so as to evade payment of tax. In the case of the assessee, there was a change in the employment. Previous employer has not issued Form

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

gain of the business. As such, where the accounts are prepared without disclosing the real cost of the goods in trade, he is duty bound to determine the taxable income by making computation in the manner he deems fit. Given the clear law in the matter, the issue becomes principally factual, wholly unproved. In our clear view, therefore, the Tribunal

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 864/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. filed a letter dated 3.7.2024. The assessee was not interested to press the appeal in ITA No.865/Coch/2022. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. With regard to ITA No.864/Coch/2022, the facts of the case

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 865/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. filed a letter dated 3.7.2024. The assessee was not interested to press the appeal in ITA No.865/Coch/2022. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. With regard to ITA No.864/Coch/2022, the facts of the case

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 767/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 54F

u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016. 2. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,95,880. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 2 ITA No.767/Coch/2024. Sri.Riyas Nelliyote