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.

22 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi442Mumbai236Jaipur128Karnataka100Raipur82Chennai79Ahmedabad77Kolkata70Bangalore60Indore57Hyderabad45Pune44Lucknow36Visakhapatnam28Cochin22Chandigarh21Cuttack19Amritsar14Kerala14Nagpur14Ranchi9Patna8Guwahati7Agra6Surat6Rajkot4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Telangana2SC1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Section 271(1)(c)23Penalty22Section 20120Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 270A10Section 194J10Addition to Income

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 271A

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

10
TDS10
Deduction8
Disallowance8
Section 68
Section 69

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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)

275(1)(c) of the Act. That is, is predicated on the applicability of the said provision. The AO’s observations, per assessment order dated 06/11/2007, in that case, reproduced at para 8 of the judgement, read as under: "Since the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS and section 269T of the Income-tax Act by accepting

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)

275(1)(c) of the Act. That is, is predicated on the applicability of the said provision. The AO’s observations, per assessment order dated 06/11/2007, in that case, reproduced at para 8 of the judgement, read as under: "Since the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS and section 269T of the Income-tax Act by accepting

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

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)

275/- received from the Treasury. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, denied the aforesaid deduction claimed ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 by the Assessee and made addition of INR 1,57,006/- which was confirmed the by the learned CIT(A). The Assessee, admittedly, did not prefer appeal against the aforesaid order passed

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 236/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 of the Act. Hence the Pr.CIT went wrong in directing the assessing officer to pass penalty order within the time limit specified in section 153 of the Act and, therefore it is; requested to delete the said directions in the revision order dated 22/01/2019. Ground-3 Defects in show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 237/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

275 of the Act. Hence the Pr.CIT went wrong in directing the assessing officer to pass penalty order within the time limit specified in section 153 of the Act and, therefore it is; requested to delete the said directions in the revision order dated 22/01/2019. Ground-3 Defects in show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 609/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 610/COCH/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 611/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 612/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 614/COCH/2010[007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 608/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 607/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 606/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

275/ 201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular dec1ares "no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act shou1 d be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes