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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai334Delhi271Ahmedabad141Jaipur140Hyderabad124Chennai97Indore85Pune63Kolkata54Rajkot52Bangalore49Surat43Chandigarh37Nagpur31Allahabad29Raipur18Agra16Lucknow16Patna12Visakhapatnam10Cuttack9Guwahati9Cochin9Jabalpur8Jodhpur7Amritsar6Dehradun1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80P20Section 14814Section 69A9Section 142(1)8Penalty8Section 271(1)(c)7Unexplained Money7Cash Deposit7Section 2506Section 69

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
5
Section 684
Addition to Income4
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

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 726/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 727/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 728/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 729/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 560/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: \nShri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

unexplained money of the appellant vide order\ndated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n5.\nBeing aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)\ncontending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the\nAct and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All\ncash deposits are duly