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.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(27)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,861Mumbai1,557Ahmedabad441Jaipur408Bangalore365Kolkata281Chennai274Pune236Hyderabad216Indore178Chandigarh147Karnataka131Raipur128Surat70Rajkot68Amritsar61Lucknow56Visakhapatnam54Allahabad49Cochin39Calcutta35Nagpur34Dehradun28Agra27Panaji20Kerala14Cuttack13SC11Guwahati11Ranchi10Patna10Jabalpur8Varanasi5Telangana4Jodhpur4Rajasthan3

Key Topics

Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Section 271(1)(c)25Addition to Income24Penalty23Section 20120Section 27115Unexplained Investment14TDS

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271A

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 194J10
Section 143(3)7
Section 2747
Section 68
Section 69

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 567/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,1(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant limb is invalid and consequently penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty without considering the fact that the assessee did not even object the defect in the notice

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,1(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant limb is invalid and consequently penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty without considering the fact that the assessee did not even object the defect in the notice

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 564/COCH/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,1(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant limb is invalid and consequently penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty without considering the fact that the assessee did not even object the defect in the notice

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 568/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,1(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant limb is invalid and consequently penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty without considering the fact that the assessee did not even object the defect in the notice

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 566/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,1(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant limb is invalid and consequently penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty without considering the fact that the assessee did not even object the defect in the notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

section 271 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall be the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of income. In the case of the assessee, entire tax has been paid much before filing return of income by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, the person responsible

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)

27 months. The assessee also confirmed the same by way of statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act on 06/09/2005 to Question No. 8 which reads as follows: “Qn. 8 During the course of search conducted today in your residential premises, a general surgeon register (marked KEM-9) was found. This register belongs to NSS Medical Mission Hospital, Pandalam

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

27 ID of the Income TaxAct, when the said order was time barred by limitation of time. The assessment order is passed on 26.12.2017 and the penalty u/s 2711) 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 June2018, whichever expires

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

27 ID of the Income TaxAct, when the said order was time barred by limitation of time. The assessment order is passed on 26.12.2017 and the penalty u/s 2711) 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 June2018, whichever expires

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

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

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 42 & 53 of 2013 on 4th July, 2016 wherein the Court took note of the contention raised by the assessee namely that the entire assessments were based on the statement of Shri V.A. Ahammed, a salesman of the assessee, recorded u/s. 133A of the Act and that in the absence of any corroborative evidence