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.

66 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai515Delhi351Kolkata313Jaipur250Ahmedabad250Chennai245Pune200Bangalore191Hyderabad169Surat138Karnataka120Indore116Chandigarh100Cochin66Rajkot53Amritsar52Nagpur50Lucknow47Visakhapatnam39Cuttack39Calcutta36Patna33Agra25Guwahati25Raipur22Panaji17Allahabad14Jabalpur13Ranchi11Dehradun9Jodhpur7SC5Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Penalty47Section 271(1)(c)44Condonation of Delay29Section 14824Section 80P23Section 27123Cash Deposit23Section 143(3)22

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

Section 14422
Section 118
Demonetization18

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is against equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271(1)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was levied on me. I challenged the levy of penalty before Hon'ble CIT (A) III, Cochin and the Hon'ble CIT (A) III, Cochin confirmed the penalty vide order u/s 250 dated 20.02.2019. The order was communicated to me on 06.03.2019 and the appeal against the order

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 188/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/COCH/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, THIRUVALLA , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/COCH/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritinjuya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 637/COCH/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and pertain to the assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03. 7.1 There was a delay of 04 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. AR has filed condonation