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.

134 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,331Mumbai3,549Ahmedabad1,030Kolkata834Jaipur803Bangalore778Pune688Chennai549Indore546Surat430Hyderabad421Chandigarh336Rajkot212Raipur209Amritsar180Visakhapatnam153Karnataka149Lucknow140Cochin134Cuttack131Nagpur121Ranchi83Allahabad75Guwahati72Agra69Patna55Dehradun53Panaji41Jabalpur37Calcutta37Jodhpur37Varanasi17Kerala14SC12Telangana6Rajasthan4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)126Penalty75Addition to Income70Section 27447Section 201(1)40Section 27136Section 143(3)33Section 271C30Section 148

ABDULLA KATTIL KOTTUR,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Abdulla Kattil Kottur Mp3/562 Selected Plaza Near Panchayath Mannarkad Ito Vs. Palakkad District Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 678 582 Palakkad Pan No :Azrpa9183C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 26.7.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067077218(1) For The Ay 2017- 18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 2 Of 10 Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 3 Of 10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80D

Showing 1–20 of 134 · Page 1 of 7

25
Section 153A22
Condonation of Delay17
Deduction15

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

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 271ASection 68Section 69

5. In case of present assessee, the initiation of penalty 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

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)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5 I.T.A. Nos.374-380/Coch/2019 381 to 384/coch/2019 3.1 It was the case of the assessee that income from house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact

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

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case

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

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case

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

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case

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

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case

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

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case

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)

271(1)(c) need not have been levied is factually incorrect as the assessee did not disclose this income in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153C. The CIT(A) noticed that the Assessing Officer had clearly spelt in the assessment order iself as to why and on what amount penalty is being levied and therefore

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 532/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

5. During the course of hearing it was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessee was of the bonafide belief that income of INR.1,57,006/- was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Complete disclosure of all relevant facts was made during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 528/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

5. During the course of hearing it was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessee was of the bonafide belief that income of INR.1,57,006/- was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Complete disclosure of all relevant facts was made during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars