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.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai780Delhi727Jaipur243Ahmedabad198Bangalore168Karnataka122Chennai98Chandigarh78Hyderabad77Kolkata74Indore74Pune69Raipur39Calcutta34Visakhapatnam33Lucknow32Nagpur24Surat24Cochin23Amritsar20Rajkot19Agra9Cuttack8Guwahati7Ranchi4Patna4Allahabad4Telangana4Dehradun3Rajasthan2Panaji1Varanasi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income22Section 271(1)(c)13Unexplained Investment12Section 2639Section 143(3)9Penalty8Section 153A6Section 153C6Section 68

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c) of the Income Tax Act 1961was initiated, in completing the assessment. According to the assessing officer, as per written submission filed by Sri. S Varadarajulu, it was mentioned that two properties with residential building i.e., Thrayambakom and Guna Nivas were purchased in the name of the assessee . However the assessing officer noticed that

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

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 1324
Section 139(1)4
Survey u/s 133A4

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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

housing loan to HDFC bank could not be explained by the assessee before the lower authorities Therefore, the repayment of loan to HDFC bank has to be taken as income of the assessee. 28. The assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,91,600 from the bank. Since the amount was withdrawn from bank out of the deposit made

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)

property which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice-u/s 153C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c). In reply to the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee submitted that he had disclosed the income as his income in spite of the same pertaining

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)

House rent of Rs.3500, total Rs.71500/- from Chitra Multi Speciality Hospital, Pandalam.” In our opinion, the undisclosed income of Rs.8,58,000/- considered by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is to be treated as ‘income from profession’ instead of ‘salary income’ and out of this, the assessee is entitled to 25% towards expenditure

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

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

Section 271(1)(c)

property and if a proper enquiry was made the Department could have found out this and instead of doing this the entire alleged purchase money was attributed to the Appellant and made heavy assessments on him. The Appellant should have given a benefit of doubt and exonerated from the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) as this

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

House, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Mathewsons building, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:ACHPM 3973H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri A.S.Narayanamoorthy, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15/01/2018 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against different

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

House, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Mathewsons building, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017. [PAN:ACHPM 3973H] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri A.S.Narayanamoorthy, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15/01/2018 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against different

FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 673/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Francis ListonFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property” of Rs.71,605/- as against the income of Rs.6,751/-. The said assessment order was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on merit. Further, the Ld.AO issued the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

house property. Since the learned CIT-DR has not controverted the above submission made by the appellant, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 463/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

house property. Since the learned CIT-DR has not controverted the above submission made by the appellant, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi