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.

43 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,976Mumbai1,794Ahmedabad534Jaipur428Bangalore365Kolkata331Chennai295Pune250Hyderabad242Indore193Chandigarh145Raipur133Karnataka132Surat120Rajkot100Lucknow58Visakhapatnam55Amritsar47Allahabad46Guwahati45Cochin43Agra41Nagpur36Calcutta35Cuttack29Dehradun27Kerala15Panaji15Varanasi12Ranchi11SC10Jabalpur9Patna8Jodhpur5Telangana4Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)65Section 201(1)40Section 153A33Section 271C30Penalty29Section 20120Addition to Income19Section 271D18Section 143(3)

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 43 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 27111
TDS10
Unexplained Investment10

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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)

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 of the appellant. The AO has levied penalty u/s

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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.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)

26-12-2017 and 16-4-2018, none of these notices has been received by the Appellant, probably because the notices have been sent to the Kanjirappally address. For this reason the Appellant did not get any opportunity to present his case against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act before the Commissioner of Income

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)

26,800/-. The assessee, during the year under consideration, had sold 7.5 cents of land and three shops. In the return of income filed pursuant to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee had not offered any capital gains. The assessment u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer

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

26 (SC) in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elaborated the circumstances under which the penalty need not be levied. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding

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

26 (SC) in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elaborated the circumstances under which the penalty need not be levied. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding