BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 45(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi479Mumbai475Jaipur143Ahmedabad140Raipur118Bangalore116Hyderabad104Chennai73Indore73Pune61Kolkata57Chandigarh49Rajkot44Allahabad43Amritsar29Surat28Visakhapatnam26Nagpur20Patna18Guwahati16Cuttack14Lucknow13Jodhpur10Jabalpur7Cochin7Ranchi3Dehradun2Agra1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 269S31Section 271D18Section 80P6Section 153C6Section 2745Section 80H5Deduction5Penalty5Section 143(3)4Section 271E

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

271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice u/s. 274 of even date: 2 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle i. Claim for deduction u/s 80IA(Rs.68,82,867/-) was rejected. ii. Bank interest of Rs. 3,13,508/- was assessed as ‘Income from Other Sources’. iii. The claim for deduction u/s 80HHC was restricted with reference to section

4
Cash Deposit4
Addition to Income3

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 421/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 80P

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made a reference to the JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode for initiation of penalty proceedings on 02/01/2018. Accordingly, JCIT issued

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 463/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

45,340/-. Subsequently a survey operation u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 02.08.2006 stated to be in connection with the search operations conducted on the same date in the case of one Mr. E. Shemsudeen. It is stated that certain incriminating documents relating to daily transaction

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

45,340/-. Subsequently a survey operation u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 02.08.2006 stated to be in connection with the search operations conducted on the same date in the case of one Mr. E. Shemsudeen. It is stated that certain incriminating documents relating to daily transaction

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD.,WAYANAD vs. JCIT RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 420/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 80P

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made a reference to the M/s. Thirunelly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode for initiation of penalty

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made a reference to the JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode for initiation of penalty proceedings on 02/01/2018. Accordingly, JCIT issued

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM, WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made a reference to the JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode for initiation of penalty proceedings on 02/01/2018. Accordingly, JCIT issued