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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai616Delhi563Jaipur200Ahmedabad178Raipur121Hyderabad117Kolkata100Chennai92Bangalore90Indore78Pune67Surat66Rajkot63Chandigarh59Guwahati30Allahabad30Lucknow29Amritsar28Nagpur26Visakhapatnam19Patna14Agra11Cuttack10Jabalpur8Ranchi7Jodhpur7Dehradun5Cochin4Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Section 687Section 270A4Section 2744Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 2633Section 42Section 271A

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271A
2
Section 68
Section 69

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, passed on 30/03/2023. The addition was confirmed u/s 68 of the Act related to unexplained credit amount to Rs.9,56,04,655/-. The Ld.AO initiated the penalty

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 959/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the AO in respect of addition made u/s. 68

SRI VIJAYA KUMAR JANARDHANAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 915/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vijaya Kumar Janardhanan बनाम/ Acit, Kollam Nair Kerala. Vs. X-15-1299, Sree Janardhana Complex, Residency Road, Kollam-691001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrpn5993Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (Ca) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 12.08.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Had Filed His Return Of Income Reflecting An Income Of Rs.83,97,670/- Which Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) & Assessment Order Was Passed On 10.12.2018 By Making An Addition Of Rs.51,52,151/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & After Hearing The Assessee, The Penalty Of Rs.17,01,706/- Was Levied By Order Dated 27.06.2019. Penalty Levied By Ao Was Assailed Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 20.07.2019 & While The Appeal Was Adjudicated Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Offered For Settlement Of Dispute Under The Direct Taxes Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 On 20.02.2021. & The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (CA)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

68 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after hearing the assessee, the penalty of Rs.17,01,706/- was levied by order dated 27.06.2019. Penalty levied by AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.07.2019 and while the appeal was adjudicated before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee