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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,299Delhi845Ahmedabad379Jaipur289Chennai269Pune220Kolkata162Bangalore144Surat144Rajkot119Karnataka105Chandigarh102Indore101Hyderabad75Raipur65Amritsar53Visakhapatnam47Lucknow45Calcutta35Agra31Nagpur27Allahabad25Cuttack23Patna20Dehradun14Guwahati13Cochin11Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Ranchi7Varanasi4SC3Telangana2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)17Penalty10Section 1489Addition to Income9Section 282(1)8Section 143(3)6Section 271(1)6Section 2636Section 139(1)

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)
5
Exemption5
Section 1444
Natural Justice4
Section 37

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 38,669/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: - 2 Smt. Amina Anvar The assessee an individual filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,25,430/-. The assessment was reopened

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

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

271(1)(c) appears to be an excessive step. The enhancement made in the instant case is the result of a factual mistake in the cost adopted in respect of the acquisition of bonus shares even as the gross receipts and the transaction itself were mentioned in the original Return of Income filed u/s 139(1). The Respondent has thereafter

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) is justified. It is also noticed that the assessee not only concealed the correct income, but also attempted to give false explanation. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were justified in levy of penalty I.T.A. No.131 & 132/Coch/2016 us. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T.Act.” Due to assessee’s non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to verify the details regarding the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of the issue / allotment of shares (OPCCPS). The 13 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 68 pages enclosing therein the financial statement for the year ending 31.03.2020, the various orders of Income Tax Authorities and the case laws relied on. The learned

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)

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act 2 Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust was issued on 29.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income and claimed expenditure of Rs. 28,55,89,443/-. Against the said return of income

BADER SULTAN KAKAD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 591/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bader Sultana Kakad .......... Appellant 11/460 Metro Bazar, Market Road Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Agtpb9696A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Palakkad ......... Respondent Assesseeby: Shri Sivadas Chettor, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of three notices aggregate amount of penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. During the penalty proceeding the assessee made details compliance on dated 04/05/2024in response to notice of the Ld. AO dated 02/05/2024. But the penalty is imposed by the Ld. AO by rejecting the submission of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee