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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur86Chandigarh28Mumbai25Ahmedabad24Indore22Delhi22Pune21Surat21Bangalore20Chennai7Jabalpur5Cochin4Hyderabad3Kolkata2Allahabad2Amritsar2Raipur2Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 69B4Section 684Section 270A4Addition to Income4Penalty3Section 143(3)2Section 115B2Section 271A2Section 271(1)(c)

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
Revision u/s 2632
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

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

69B and the tax should be levied @30% u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. ii) The gift received from assessee’s sister and mother amounting to Rs.60,00,000/- was also not found properly examined by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order. Hence, the PCIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act proposing for revision

TOWNHOMES VILLAS AND APPARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the Townhomes Villas and partments Pvt Ltd. reasoning that the assessee was liable for making payment of Rs.6,65,00,000/- as per the agreementwhereas the assessee has paid only Rs.3,16,00,000/- only. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that there is unaccounted payment made

TOWNHOMES VILLAS AND APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the Townhomes Villas and partments Pvt Ltd. reasoning that the assessee was liable for making payment of Rs.6,65,00,000/- as per the agreementwhereas the assessee has paid only Rs.3,16,00,000/- only. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that there is unaccounted payment made