BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

60 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 11(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,448Mumbai1,215Jaipur403Ahmedabad382Chennai271Hyderabad266Bangalore239Indore224Surat211Pune199Kolkata194Raipur171Chandigarh133Rajkot119Amritsar91Nagpur82Cochin60Lucknow58Visakhapatnam56Allahabad54Guwahati44Cuttack42Agra32Patna32Ranchi32Dehradun28Panaji20Jodhpur19Jabalpur18Varanasi7

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)98Addition to Income45Penalty39Section 143(3)38Section 271D36Section 269S33Section 14831Section 80P28Cash Deposit

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 60 · Page 1 of 3

26
Section 27421
Section 270A20
Reassessment20
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

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 529/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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 530/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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

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

ITA 527/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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 531/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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)

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that the claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in respect of ineligible income [i.e. interest from banks and entities other than co-operative societies] and the same amounted to furnishing of inaccurate

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)Section 37

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ( notice dated 30.12.2019) was issued for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. However, we noticed the penalty has been imposed vide order dated 10.02.2022 by referring to the first limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely “concealment particulars of income”. Initiation of penalty on one of the limb

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

6. Then coming to the security deposits received from various employees of the assessee, we will get some assistance 7 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) in the case of Asst.Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B.Shanthi, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

6. Then coming to the security deposits received from various employees of the assessee, we will get some assistance 7 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) in the case of Asst.Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B.Shanthi, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w Explanation 1 thereto, adverting to the copy of the said notice (PB pg. 3). Reliance for the purpose was placed by him principally on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB), also reading out there-from. Smt. Devi would, in reply, submit that the matter ought to be decided

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

11,09,051 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who granted substantial relief to the assessee by sustaining the addition only to the extent of Rs. 75,32,783/-. The consequential order to CIT(A)’s order was passed and the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 and 271

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

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

6 months from the end of the month in which assessments were completed, the penalty orders were barred by time. It did not agree with the contention of the Revenue that the limitation for completing the penalty proceedings was governed by Section 275(1)(a) and not by Section 275(1)(c) because the assessment proceedings for each

M/S.KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

6 months from the end of the month in which assessments were completed, the penalty orders were barred by time. It did not agree with the contention of the Revenue that the limitation for completing the penalty proceedings was governed by Section 275(1)(a) and not by Section 275(1)(c) because the assessment proceedings for each

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that the order passed

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that the order passed

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that the order passed

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The learned Sr. DR submits that the order passed