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.

24 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 44clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,343Mumbai1,098Ahmedabad317Jaipur305Bangalore299Chennai160Karnataka128Hyderabad125Raipur123Indore120Kolkata108Pune108Surat80Chandigarh78Rajkot50Amritsar47Allahabad45Visakhapatnam41Calcutta34Cuttack32Lucknow30Cochin24Agra21Nagpur21Kerala18Dehradun13Panaji10Guwahati9Jodhpur8Patna6Jabalpur6SC4Telangana3Rajasthan2Varanasi2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Penalty22Section 20120Section 271(1)(c)18Section 44A14Section 271B12Section 194J10TDS10

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 24 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2748
Addition to Income8
Deduction6

44-AB] [ Substituted by Act 22 of 1995, Section 48, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.1995).], the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent. of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts

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) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed income and therefore the question of specifying the default

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) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed income and therefore the question of specifying the default

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) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed income and therefore the question of specifying the default

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) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed income and therefore the question of specifying the default

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) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed income and therefore the question of specifying the default

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), i.e., 8 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, under which the impugned penalty stands levied u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w Explanation 1 thereto, adverting to the copy of the said notice (PB pg. 3). Reliance for the purpose was placed by him principally

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,23,108/- 2003-04 12,01,918/ 2004-05 6,95,852/ 2005-06 4,68,202/- 2006-07 2,44,553/- 2007-08 2,68,385/- 2008-09 1,77,154/-. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the main issue is penalty imposed by the AO on account of addition

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)

44,41,274. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 06.12.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee has not filed the Audit Report as mandated u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Therefore, penalty notice was issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271B of the I.T.Act (Notice dated 06.12.2016). There

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.ANTONY'S TIMBER DEP, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 294/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 274

44, in which it was held that penalty cannot be levied where additions are made by the A.O rejecting the explanation of the assessee since it does not amount I.T.A. No.294/Coch/2018 & CO No.63/coch/2018 to concealment of income within the meaning of Explanation to section 271. With regard to these submissions, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee's case

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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 613/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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink

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

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink