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.

46 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,143Mumbai884Kolkata488Jaipur443Ahmedabad256Pune211Indore195Hyderabad176Chennai168Bangalore162Chandigarh110Surat106Rajkot87Amritsar66Cuttack59Ranchi55Cochin46Guwahati43Nagpur41Calcutta35Agra32Patna27Allahabad27Raipur27Visakhapatnam23Lucknow21Jodhpur15Jabalpur10Dehradun7SC6Panaji3Karnataka3Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)110Section 153A50Addition to Income37Penalty34Section 143(3)21Section 13220Section 27118Section 271D16Unexplained Investment

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 370/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 14813
Section 27412
Undisclosed Income9

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 373/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 371/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 369/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI. SINKARAM M. CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 372/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.SINKARAM M.CHETTIAR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 368/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.368-373/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sinkaram Chettiar, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Arun Niwas, Ernakulam, Kochi. 43/986, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam, Kochi. [Pan: Ahepm 6323R]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

income u/s. 139 of the Act in all the assessment years except AY 2010-11, the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee declared undisclosed

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 271(1)

undisclosed income. Therefore it was the case of the assessee that the addition did not tantamount to concealment, even though they were agreed to. The Assessing officer rejected the explanation offered and went on to levy a penalty of Rs 51,151/- u/s 271

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 566/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 567/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 564/COCH/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 568/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.S.Rajagopal, CA
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income". 4. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the addition on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee on construction of building was confirmed by the ITAT and hence the same was nothing but undisclosed

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs.30,93,270/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs. 3,16,070/- Addition as per order u/s. 143 (3) dt. 13.7.2011 Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Income Assessed Rs.35,59,340/- Deemed income u/s

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs.30,93,270/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs. 3,16,070/- Addition as per order u/s. 143 (3) dt. 13.7.2011 Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Income Assessed Rs.35,59,340/- Deemed income u/s

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 384/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 381/COCH/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 386/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M.A.MOHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 385/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 383/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. C.B.M.Warrier, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

undisclosed sources and income from agriculture. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and u/s