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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 149(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi408Mumbai376Kolkata198Jaipur143Karnataka101Ahmedabad89Chennai67Hyderabad58Indore56Pune56Bangalore54Raipur43Calcutta34Rajkot34Chandigarh29Lucknow23Amritsar22Guwahati22Visakhapatnam21Allahabad20Cuttack17Surat14Nagpur14Dehradun12Ranchi12Agra10Cochin8Jodhpur4Patna2Rajasthan1SC1Telangana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)54Section 153A30Penalty8Section 143(3)7Section 1326Section 80H5Section 2744Section 80I2Section 44A2

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 372/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 371/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 369/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 370/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 373/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 368/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

149 1,06,596 I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ 4. Against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as follows: “I have gone through the penalty order and submission of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s. 271(1

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

section 274 of granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, it explained, could not be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge. As explained earlier in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works[1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj), the use of the words ‘and/or’, i.e., between the two charges, being ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate

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

section 271(1)(c) (refer Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros