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 92(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai381Delhi296Jaipur116Raipur94Ahmedabad81Bangalore71Pune59Chennai46Hyderabad46Chandigarh40Kolkata38Indore32Rajkot30Guwahati28Amritsar24Allahabad23Visakhapatnam22Nagpur20Surat16Lucknow14Cochin6Jabalpur5Patna5Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3Varanasi2Ranchi1Cuttack1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Section 271D10Section 270A10Penalty6Section 685Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 2744Section 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
3
Exemption3
Section 269S2
Cash Deposit2
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

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

92 taxmann.com 128 (Ker.). As 3 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. against the said order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this present appeal with the following grounds:- “1. Rejecting our contentions in our reply dated 04-12-2023, as detailed in the statement of facts, the CIT (Appeals) NFAC has confirmed the penalty u/s 271D

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

92 taxmann.com 128 (Ker.). As 3 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. against the said order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed this present appeal with the following grounds:- “1. Rejecting our contentions in our reply dated 04-12-2023, as detailed in the statement of facts, the CIT (Appeals) NFAC has confirmed the penalty u/s 271D

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

92,150/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the addition to capital of Rs. 97,62,000/- disbelieving the sundry creditors appearing in the Balance Sheet and the said assessment was not agitated before the appellate forum. Thus, the assessment attained finality. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 594/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, C.AFor Respondent: ShriLeena Lal, (SR.AR.)
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(3)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 80

92,800/- u/s. 270A that 100% of tax sought to avid. Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before us. 3. Ld.AR filed a paper book containing pages 1-54 which is kept in record. The Ld.AR submitted that after the completion of assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee filed the letter for immunity for proceeding u/s 270A

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 767/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.C.B.M.Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 54F

u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016. 2. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,95,880. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 2 ITA No.767/Coch/2024. Sri.Riyas Nelliyote