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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,457Mumbai1,322Ahmedabad429Jaipur340Kolkata212Bangalore200Chennai161Hyderabad158Pune154Indore153Surat144Raipur129Karnataka125Chandigarh114Rajkot82Visakhapatnam47Amritsar41Lucknow38Calcutta37Nagpur34Allahabad33Guwahati32Cochin27Agra23Cuttack21Dehradun14Patna14Jabalpur14Ranchi9Jodhpur9SC5Telangana3Varanasi3Rajasthan2Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)40Section 271C34Section 20120Penalty17Section 271(1)(c)16Addition to Income16Section 6812TDS11Section 194J10Section 263

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

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

9
Unexplained Investment9
Section 143(3)8
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

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 50/COCH/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

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)

68 to 74/Coch/2019 income as undisclosed business income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is initiated for concealment of income," 9. During the course of hearing, the learned for the appellant produced before us order No.TRL-08/06-07 dated 08,08.2007, whereby the penalty proceedings under Section

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

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T.Act.” Due to assessee’s non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to verify the details regarding the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68

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 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 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 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

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 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 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