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.

50 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,194Mumbai2,014Ahmedabad542Jaipur500Bangalore372Chennai334Kolkata315Pune272Hyderabad252Indore225Chandigarh167Surat152Raipur142Karnataka134Rajkot99Amritsar88Visakhapatnam64Allahabad55Cochin50Lucknow43Nagpur43Agra41Calcutta35Dehradun33Cuttack26Patna22Guwahati20Panaji16Kerala14Jabalpur12SC12Ranchi11Varanasi9Jodhpur9Telangana5Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)86Section 201(1)40Section 153A34Penalty34Section 271C30Addition to Income28Section 80P23Section 143(3)20Section 201

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

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

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 271D16
TDS13
Unexplained Investment11

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

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)

25,63,553 4,22,98,078 2,26,70,149 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

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

25-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 17/02/2023, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment year

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

25,38,090/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and passed an order under section 271(1)(c) levying a penalty of Rs.40,70,658/-. The Assessing Officer has stated that the additional income of Rs.1,01,36,100/- declared by the assessee was only after the survey operations and therefore it is clear that had the survey been

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

25,38,090/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and passed an order under section 271(1)(c) levying a penalty of Rs.40,70,658/-. The Assessing Officer has stated that the additional income of Rs.1,01,36,100/- declared by the assessee was only after the survey operations and therefore it is clear that had the survey been

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

section 271(1)(c) is essential for the Revenue to initiate the penalty proceedings. 8. The penalty proceedings must be confined only to those grounds specifically stated in the notice so that the assessee could meet those grounds. It is not open to the authority, to impose a penalty on the grounds other than what the assessee was called upon

M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 323/COCH/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 147 of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 11/01/2001 wherein the Assessing Officer had calculated short term capital gains of Rs.6,43,779/- on sale of shops. The calculation of short term capital gains is as follows: The sold shop building Rs.10,10,000/- (sale consideration