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.

45 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai189Delhi145Bangalore102Indore95Jaipur51Surat48Cochin45Chennai44Kolkata39Hyderabad35Ahmedabad32Lucknow22Karnataka21Visakhapatnam20Pune17Cuttack16Amritsar15Rajkot13Jabalpur12Chandigarh9Allahabad9Panaji5Guwahati4Agra3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Raipur3Varanasi2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 271D36Section 269S33Section 143(3)32Section 271(1)(c)29Section 44A29Addition to Income29Penalty27Section 271B26Cash Deposit

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 45 · Page 1 of 3

24
Demonetization19
Section 27118
Section 118

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

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

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 531/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 530/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD ,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 529/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 528/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 532/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 527/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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

273B in the Act. If there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the tax payer could not get a loan ordeposit by account- payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power." "At this juncture it is appropriate to quote

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

273B in the Act. If there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the tax payer could not get a loan ordeposit by account- payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power." "At this juncture it is appropriate to quote

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

271(1)(c) is one such consequence, saved of course u/s. 273B on proving a reasonable cause, which is a reiteration of the principle that though a strict civil liability, penalty is yet not automatic and gets excluded where the assessee-defaulter was constrained to act in the manner he does, i.e., in the facts and circumstances of his case

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 27l(1)(c)

u/s 271(l)(c) was imposed. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Madras High Court in Sri Nityakalyani Textiles Ltd. vs. DCIT (282 ITR 154) which justified levy of penalty on under-valuation of closing stock. Further, it 3 I.T.A. No.463 /Coch/2019 was noticed that the assessee had failed to furnish reasonable cause as envisaged in section 273B

M/S.THE VAIKOM PALLIPRETHUSSERRY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-5, , KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 454/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.A.JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 4Section 44ASection 80P(2)(a)

271 B of the Act, penalty is leviable on failure to get account audited or furnish the report before the specified date under section 44AB i.e. due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. However, levy of such penalty is subject to the provisions of section 273B

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

271. In other words, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271C (dealing with failure to remit the deducted tax) is not excluded or the benefit is not confined to the instance covered by section 271C(1)(a) alone. Section 273B itself starts with a “non obstante clause” saying that the benefit is to be extended, to the extent

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 319/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 320/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

M/S.KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 5 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO November 6, 2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on July 29, 2008, is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 5 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO November 6, 2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on July 29, 2008, is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation

THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MANNARKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

ITA 871/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P

u/s. 44AB stands delinked from the obligation to file return –a default where- under is subject to penalty under a separate provision, by Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 01.07.1995. Even if, therefore, the assessee is not required to – as where he has no income for the relevant year, or otherwise does not his file return of income, he is yet obliged

ATTINKARA ELECTRONICS,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

271 B of the Act. However, according to the CIT(A), levy of such penalty is subject to provisions of section 273B of Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the provisions of section 273B, it is for the assessee to prove that there was reasonable cause for failure to get the accounts audited as required under section 44A8