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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210Mumbai209Ahmedabad58Jaipur54Pune46Raipur43Chennai39Bangalore38Allahabad24Chandigarh23Hyderabad21Kolkata18Indore13Ranchi13Cochin12Nagpur10Agra8Lucknow8Surat8Jodhpur7Patna6Dehradun5Rajkot4Jabalpur3Amritsar3Panaji2Guwahati1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)42Section 270A13Section 80P(2)(d)12Penalty12Addition to Income12Disallowance11Section 2509Deduction9Section 80P(2)(a)

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

6
Section 80P6
Section 143(3)6
Section 11(1)(d)2

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

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)

158 (SC.]. Perusal of record shows the Assessee had disclosed all the material facts and no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee is that even if the claim of the Assessee is taken to be incorrect no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act since

HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. AO TYPE-W, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 776/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jose Zachariah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) is justified or not. Penalty proceedings were initiated on account of disallowance of loss on account of foreign currency transaction of Rs. 21,84,084/-. The mere fact that the additions were made to the returned income by disallowing certain deductions by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income

SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

ITA 339/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

u/s. 3 Sai Export Enerprises 139(1) of the Act. The mere fact that the additions were made to the returned income by disallowing certain deductions by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished incorrect particulars of income and provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. Reliance in this

CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

158 (SC) and Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) has held that where the addition is made in respect of a bona fide claim, even if such claim is untenable according to the learned Assessing Officer, still no penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. D. Where the appellant has made adequate disclosures

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 11(1)(d) of the IT act and that the trust had received corpus donations and the details of the donors and the original certificates were produced for verification during the course of the assessment proceedings. Also, the trust had maintained a general donation receipt book and received general donations as well as specific donations and the trust would

HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. The brief facts pertaining to this issue are that during the assessment proceedings, upon the perusal of the audit report, it was observed that the assessee has deposited employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute. Accordingly, the AO vide order passed u/s.143

BHIMA GOLD AND DIAMONDS,ADOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 570/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhbhima Gold & Diamonds Assistant Commissioner Of Central Junction Income Tax Vs. Adoor 691523 Kollam [Pan: Aanfb8547J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krisahnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,83,160/- , it emerges during the course of hearing that the same