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 27(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,955Mumbai1,730Ahmedabad474Jaipur415Bangalore369Kolkata312Chennai276Pune241Hyderabad218Indore180Chandigarh147Raipur139Karnataka130Surat79Rajkot74Amritsar69Lucknow60Visakhapatnam56Allahabad50Cochin43Nagpur35Calcutta35Agra27Dehradun25Panaji20Kerala15Cuttack15Guwahati12Ranchi11Patna11SC11Jabalpur6Varanasi5Telangana4Jodhpur4Rajasthan3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)80Section 153A40Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Penalty29Addition to Income25Section 20120Unexplained Investment14Section 132

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted and the legal ground raised by the Appellant is allowed. As the legal ground is allowed, the grounds raised on merits are not discussed.” 5. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without striking out the irrelevant portion of the show cause notice u/s

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 143(3)13
TDS13
Section 27411
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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted and the legal ground raised by the Appellant is allowed. As the legal ground is allowed, the grounds raised on merits are not discussed.” 5. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without striking out the irrelevant portion of the show cause notice u/s

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted and the legal ground raised by the Appellant is allowed. As the legal ground is allowed, the grounds raised on merits are not discussed.” 5. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without striking out the irrelevant portion of the show cause notice u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted and the legal ground raised by the Appellant is allowed. As the legal ground is allowed, the grounds raised on merits are not discussed.” 5. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without striking out the irrelevant portion of the show cause notice u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted and the legal ground raised by the Appellant is allowed. As the legal ground is allowed, the grounds raised on merits are not discussed.” 5. The CIT(A) observed that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without striking out the irrelevant portion of the show cause notice 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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

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)

section 271(1)(c) at length and decided that where income has been voluntarily declared in the Return of Income filed u/s. 153A penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Similar decision was given in the case of Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata also. The courts have decided that the concealment is to be decided after the Return of Income filed

MS.KALLIYATH CYRIL RAJU,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 54/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

27,780/-. Similarly for AY 2011-12, the assessee filed the return of income at Rs.15,87,420/- as against the original return of income at Rs.12,66,560/-. Thus, declaring additional income of Rs.3,21,356/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated by service of notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, directing

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account

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

271(1)(c) of the Act at 200% on the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to 100%. It was submitted that the major addition during the year on which penalty was levied was in respect of gift of Rs. 6,63,84,947/ received by the assessee by transfer from the NRE account