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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284Mumbai194Karnataka120Jaipur75Bangalore72Ahmedabad54Kolkata31Indore31Amritsar22Pune22Allahabad21Hyderabad19Chandigarh18Rajkot12Surat9Cochin6Nagpur5Patna5Dehradun3Visakhapatnam3Chennai2Ranchi1SC1Jodhpur1Telangana1Varanasi1Rajasthan1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 282(1)8Addition to Income6Penalty5Natural Justice5Section 139(1)4Section 1444Section 271(1)(c)4Section 271(1)4Section 12A(1)(ac)4

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

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Exemption4
Section 2713
Section 2633
ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
20 Nov 2025
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in the case. Addition: 9,50,000/-“ 6.4 As seen from the above, , the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act considered the deposits made into the Bank account with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Muvattupuzha at Rs.95,00,000/- and called for explanation from