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.

42 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,676Delhi1,658Ahmedabad422Bangalore415Kolkata344Chennai334Jaipur316Indore244Hyderabad188Surat141Pune135Karnataka133Raipur126Chandigarh95Rajkot78Visakhapatnam73Lucknow55Cochin42Nagpur41Allahabad37Calcutta35Agra33Amritsar33Cuttack31Ranchi25Guwahati21Dehradun20Patna14Kerala14Panaji10SC10Varanasi10Jodhpur9Jabalpur9Telangana4Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)67Section 201(1)40Section 153A37Penalty36Section 269S31Section 271C30Section 20120Section 271D20Section 14816

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 42 · Page 1 of 3

Addition to Income15
TDS12
Deduction9

22 of 1995, Section 48, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.1995).], the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent. of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

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)

E R Per BENCH These appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 14/06/2017 and pertain to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) holding that penalty is not leviable

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2019[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 271(1)(c)

E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kottayam dated 25/06/2018 and pertain to the assessment year 1995-96. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Kottayam erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ITA 4/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

e) Radhey Chandrika Prasad vs. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 274 (All.) f) Kakarla Krishnamurthy vs. CIT (1981) 216 ITR 206 (AP) g) Mahalakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 53 (Karn.) Prayer The Respondent humbly prays the order issued by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals- I) deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) may be upheld and assessee

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

E R Per George George K, JM These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, both dated 22.01.2019, passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment years are 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Since common issue is raised in these appeals, they were heard together and are being

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

E R Per George George K, JM These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, both dated 22.01.2019, passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment years are 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Since common issue is raised in these appeals, they were heard together and are being

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)

E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefore, such penalty could not have been imposed. Since the outcome of the judgment of the High Court can be sustained on this aspect alone, it is not even necessary to go into other aspects. Leaving the other questions of law open, the appeal is dismissed

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)

E of the Income Tax Act were invoked after six months of limitation and, therefore, such penalty could not have been imposed. Since the outcome of the judgment of the High Court can be sustained on this aspect alone, it is not even necessary to go into other aspects. Leaving the other questions of law open, the appeal is dismissed

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

E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the dismissal of his appeal contesting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 25.06.2008 for Assessment Year 2000-01 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s order dated

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

E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi [CIT(A)] dated 05.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These seven appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) dated 30/09/2019 arising out of the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions in all these assessment years

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

E R PerCHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-III, Kochi dated 17/10/2018 and pertain to assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeals

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

E R PerCHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-III, Kochi dated 17/10/2018 and pertain to assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeals

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 612/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 611/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink