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.

40 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,090Delhi1,027Ahmedabad349Bangalore270Jaipur202Chennai164Pune160Hyderabad142Kolkata134Indore107Chandigarh105Karnataka103Surat90Raipur80Rajkot60Nagpur53Lucknow43Amritsar41Cochin40Calcutta35Visakhapatnam23Guwahati21Jodhpur13Allahabad13Dehradun12Patna11Agra10Ranchi9Cuttack7Varanasi6SC6Telangana3Jabalpur2Rajasthan2Panaji2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)41Section 271D36Section 269S33Penalty28Section 80P27Addition to Income27Section 27116Section 143(3)14Exemption14Deduction

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 50/COCH/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 44A10
Section 27410

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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

exempted. k) That the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal has gone wrong in omitting to consider the statement of cash flow prepared from the bank accounts, the details of bank transaction, net wealth statement, statement of peak debit in the statement of cash

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 320/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 319/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

PALLOOTTIGIRI SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

Exemption Ward, Pallottigiri, Trivandrum. Kerala – 695 016. Vs. PAN: AAATP2861J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri P.V. Chacko, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR : 01-01-2025 Date of Hearing : 27-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/04/2024

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

exempted u/s 10 (38) of the Income Tax, as the transaction is chargeable to 'securities transaction tax' and STT was paid on this transaction. 4. The ld AR relied on various judicial pronouncements to canvas the proposition that inadvertent omission of an item does not attract penalty u/s 271

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

Exemption),Cochin-18 for initiation of proceedings u/s.271D of the Act for violating provisions of sec.269SS of the Act. The JCIT(E) issued notice and the assessee also submitted their objections, which was not accepted by the JCIT(E) and penalty u/s.271D of the Act was imposed. As against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

Exemption),Cochin-18 for initiation of proceedings u/s.271D of the Act for violating provisions of sec.269SS of the Act. The JCIT(E) issued notice and the assessee also submitted their objections, which was not accepted by the JCIT(E) and penalty u/s.271D of the Act was imposed. As against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 131/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

penalty I.T.A. No.131 & 132/Coch/2016 us. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 132/Coch/2016 is dismissed. 8. In the appeal in ITA No. 131/Coch/2016 for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271 rws 274 of the I. T. Act was initiated by by issue of notice dated 20.12.2016. In response the appellant submitted that the trust is eligible for exemption under section 11(1)(d) of the IT act and that the trust had received corpus donations and the details of the donors and the original certificates were produced

THE ITO,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CALICUT vs. DR.K.P. ALI, KASARGODE

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

ITA 511/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the view taken by the Assessing Officer was upheld. Subsequent to the CIT(A)’s ITA No.511/Coch/2016. 2 Dr.K.P.Ali. order, penalty u/s 271

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

exempt income u/s 14A of the I.T.Act, and (ii) huge interest paid which are not commensurate with the loans raised and had shown less turnover. The assessment was set aside in proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act for the purpose of examination of impact of section 56(2)(viib) or section 68 of the I.T.Act, as regards the issue

RAJAGIRI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJAGIRI,KALAMASSERY vs. ITO EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust .......... Appellant Rajagiri, Kalamassery 683104 [Pan: Aaatr5410K] Vs. Ito (Exemption Circle), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.J. Romid, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Romid, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Exemption Circle), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.J. Romid, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 14.05.2025 for Assessment Year