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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi115Mumbai111Bangalore69Kolkata31Chennai19Pune17Jaipur16Chandigarh16Indore13Cochin10Cuttack8Ahmedabad6Nagpur6Hyderabad5Jabalpur5Amritsar4Visakhapatnam3Lucknow2Patna2Agra2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)26Penalty10Section 2749Addition to Income9Unexplained Investment7Survey u/s 133A7Section 80H5Section 271A5Section 143(3)

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 addition

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

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

4
Section 292B3
Undisclosed Income3
Section 80I2
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 addition

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 addition

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 the addition

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 addition

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)

271(1)(c) need not have been levied is factually incorrect as the assessee did not disclose this income in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153C. The CIT(A) noticed that the Assessing Officer had clearly spelt in the assessment order iself as to why and on what amount penalty is being levied and therefore

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

section 271(1)(c) becomes applicable as it clearly states that when a person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, is liable for penalty. Thus The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before

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

section 271(1)(c) becomes applicable as it clearly states that when a person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, is liable for penalty. Thus The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

section 271(1)(c) (refer Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UoI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros

P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

section 271(1)(c) in the order of assessment and the notice dated 27.12.2016 be read as reference to s.271AAB. This was followed by a fresh notice u/s. 271AAB dated 26.5.2017 (copy on record), and the passing of the penalty order on 28.6.2017. 3.2 Our first observation in the matter is that the order u/s. 292B