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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai497Delhi413Jaipur146Raipur122Ahmedabad119Bangalore112Hyderabad66Chennai59Pune51Indore44Rajkot38Chandigarh34Nagpur30Amritsar28Kolkata28Allahabad27Surat26Visakhapatnam20Lucknow15Patna10Guwahati9Cochin6Varanasi6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Ranchi4Cuttack4Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 27110Section 271D6Penalty5Section 274Section 1473Section 271(1)(c)3Addition to Income3Condonation of Delay

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 319/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

section is not applicable in respect of deposits/loan accepted from Govt. and hence penalty is not leviable u/s 2711) of the Act. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal. 7. The appellant may submit that the penalty of Rs.1,02,14,54,585/- levied u/s.271D

3
Section 139(1)2
Section 142(1)2
Undisclosed Income2

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 320/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

section is not applicable in respect of deposits/loan accepted from Govt. and hence penalty is not leviable u/s 2711) of the Act. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal. 7. The appellant may submit that the penalty of Rs.1,02,14,54,585/- levied u/s.271D

ATTU PURATTU ISMAIL,THALASSERY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 812/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

For Appellant: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

54,484/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made on capital contribution of Rs. 14,00,000/-. However, he confirmed the addition of interest of Rs. 42,184/-. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 13,035/- vide order dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 271

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

54,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 184/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

54,395/- filed on 24.03.2022 and also challenged the action of the AO in taxing the entire contract receipts of Rs. 3,22,93,096/-. The learned CIT(A), after due consideration of the submission made before him held that the amount in question represents the contract receipts as evident from the information contained in Form 26AS of the appellant

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

54,395/- filed on 24.03.2022 and also challenged the action of the AO in taxing the entire contract receipts of Rs. 3,22,93,096/-. The learned CIT(A), after due consideration of the submission made before him held that the amount in question represents the contract receipts as evident from the information contained in Form 26AS of the appellant