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.

89 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,658Mumbai3,159Ahmedabad851Jaipur791Kolkata788Bangalore750Pune629Chennai498Indore420Hyderabad415Surat358Chandigarh313Raipur185Rajkot176Karnataka147Amritsar146Lucknow136Visakhapatnam110Cochin89Cuttack87Nagpur81Allahabad74Agra62Patna58Dehradun50Ranchi49Guwahati47Jabalpur42Calcutta39Jodhpur39Panaji22Kerala18Varanasi16SC11Telangana7Rajasthan2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)123Penalty73Section 153A55Addition to Income52Section 201(1)40Section 271C34Section 269S33Section 44A32Section 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 89 · Page 1 of 5

31
Section 271D30
Unexplained Investment16
Deduction15

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

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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)

penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the above assessment years vide order dated 23/02/2016. The CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on Explanation 5 to I.T.A. Nos.368-373/C2017/ section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant provision applicable to the case is 271(1)(c) r.w.s. Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The Assessing Officer ought to have found that the non-filing of the explanation was due to the absence of the Appellant from India and not on account of any deliberate or willful act. (c) The Assessing Officer should have found that

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be I.T.A. No.524/Coch/2018 imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain 8 I.T.A. No. 95&96/C/2016 printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain 8 I.T.A. No. 95&96/C/2016 printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given

M/S.JEENA HOTEL & UDAYA BAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 271BSection 44A

u/s 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. However, this is subject to the provisions of section 273B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 273B reads as under: "Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases” 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.60,227/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.99,300/- for the assessment year 2011-12. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In the present case, a search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried

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