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.

91 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,331Mumbai2,796Ahmedabad767Bangalore656Jaipur638Kolkata634Pune499Indore396Chennai363Hyderabad356Surat278Chandigarh237Raipur192Karnataka145Rajkot143Amritsar124Visakhapatnam118Lucknow104Nagpur98Cochin91Cuttack83Allahabad58Agra55Ranchi54Dehradun43Calcutta37Guwahati36Patna34Panaji33Jabalpur22Kerala15Jodhpur13SC12Telangana9Varanasi6Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)88Addition to Income75Penalty57Section 201(1)40Section 143(3)36Section 269S33Section 271C30Section 271D28Section 80P

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 91 · Page 1 of 5

26
Cash Deposit26
Section 20120
Demonetization19

13,55,180/- as Total Income after claiming appropriate deductions u/s 80D and 80C of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed on 20.11.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act after verification of documents produced by the assessee. Since the assessee had not filed Audit Report within time, the AO also proposed

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that the addition

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that the addition

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that the addition

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that the addition

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 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that the addition

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was levied on me. I challenged the levy of penalty before Hon'ble CIT (A) III, Cochin and the Hon'ble CIT (A) III, Cochin confirmed the penalty vide order u/s 250 dated 20.02.2019. The order was communicated to me on 06.03.2019 and the appeal against the order

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)

13,400/- to Rs. 7,32,760/- (i.e. Rs.5,80,640/- + Rs.1,93,400/-). Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to rework the quantum of penalty leviable. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee’s claim that he offered the amount of Rs.5,80,640/- voluntarily during the course of search and therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) need

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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

13. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 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

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)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c

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)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c

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)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c