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.

26 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,148Mumbai1,019Ahmedabad333Jaipur251Bangalore237Indore152Pune134Raipur132Karnataka127Chennai112Kolkata106Hyderabad87Chandigarh78Rajkot50Surat46Visakhapatnam45Nagpur39Calcutta35Amritsar32Lucknow28Allahabad26Cochin26Patna20Agra18Kerala14Guwahati13Ranchi11Dehradun9Panaji8Cuttack7Jabalpur6Telangana4SC4Jodhpur2Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)25Addition to Income23Unexplained Investment14Section 153D12Section 271D10Penalty10Section 153A9Section 2747Section 132

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

2 Sri.A.Shihabudeen. had constructed the said shopping complex. Further information also received that the assessee is in receipt of rental income and purchased property at Anchel and purchased a Benz car. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily. Therefore, based on the information, the A.O. has reason to believe that income chargeable

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

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

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

6
Survey u/s 133A5
Section 2714
Search & Seizure4
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

2 Sri.A.Shihabudeen. had constructed the said shopping complex. Further information also received that the assessee is in receipt of rental income and purchased property at Anchel and purchased a Benz car. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily. Therefore, based on the information, the A.O. has reason to believe that income chargeable

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

2 Sri.A.Shihabudeen. had constructed the said shopping complex. Further information also received that the assessee is in receipt of rental income and purchased property at Anchel and purchased a Benz car. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily. Therefore, based on the information, the A.O. has reason to believe that income chargeable

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

2 Sri.A.Shihabudeen. had constructed the said shopping complex. Further information also received that the assessee is in receipt of rental income and purchased property at Anchel and purchased a Benz car. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily. Therefore, based on the information, the A.O. has reason to believe that income chargeable

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

2 Sri.A.Shihabudeen. had constructed the said shopping complex. Further information also received that the assessee is in receipt of rental income and purchased property at Anchel and purchased a Benz car. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily. Therefore, based on the information, the A.O. has reason to believe that income chargeable

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

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

47,04,660/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Other than these amounts, the remaining additions in every assessment year are confirmed." Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the aforesaid being the factual background, the findings in Tribunal's order are entirely factual and these appeals do not give rise to any question

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

47,597/-, as per details provided by the employer in Form 16 dated 30/04/2011. This return has been initially processed u/s 143(1) and notice Page 2 of 7 u/s 143(2) dated 7/8/2012 was issued for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that the previous employer M/s. HDFC Bank Limited had deducted

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

47 employees, 2 persons passed away and other employees are not available for contact)(Annexure-2)- b) The appellant has submitted a detailed reply to the CIT(Appeals), NFAC in response to the notice dated 28-11- 2023 during the first appellateproceedings, wherein reference was made to the case law Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

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

47 employees, 2 persons passed away and other employees are not available for contact)(Annexure-2)- b) The appellant has submitted a detailed reply to the CIT(Appeals), NFAC in response to the notice dated 28-11- 2023 during the first appellateproceedings, wherein reference was made to the case law Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

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

2 Arun Majeed search seizure operations were conducted in the residential premises of the assessee u/s. 132 of the Act on 18.12.2013. Consequently the AO issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the appellant filed return of income on 30.03.2016 disclosing total income of Rs. 8,53,43,930/- by disclosing additional income

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale