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.

66 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai755Delhi720Jaipur238Ahmedabad198Bangalore149Karnataka122Chennai91Chandigarh78Indore72Kolkata69Pune67Hyderabad66Raipur39Calcutta34Visakhapatnam33Lucknow31Nagpur24Surat23Cochin23Amritsar20Rajkot16Agra10Cuttack8Guwahati7Ranchi4Patna4Allahabad4Telangana4Dehradun3Rajasthan2Panaji1Varanasi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)62Section 153A44Addition to Income35Penalty35House Property28Section 271D24Section 13223Survey u/s 133A22Search & Seizure

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 146/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

house property for an amount of Rs. 8,23,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 2.1 A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 23/10/2007, in which, it was found that the assessee had invested Rs. 8,23,000/- in the purchase of property which was not reflected in his return of income

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 143(3)17
Section 142(1)14
Section 12A14

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 825/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to levy of penalty are, during the relevant FY 2006-07, assessee sold a house property

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 824/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to levy of penalty are, during the relevant FY 2006-07, assessee sold a house property

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shanta Sriram Infra & Vs. Dcit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs 4180 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : “WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before

KAMALA SHIVA KUMAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

property at Rahon Road, Ludhiana, the main reason for levy of penalty was that assessee disclosed lower rates of plots but the same was not supported by any reasons by the AO for taking higher valuation. The learned Departmental Representative admitted that no material or evidence was found during the course of search to support findings of the AO that

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

ITA 915/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the appellant is liable for penalty on this amount. It is seen that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for earlier years where in the amount of hire charges were treated as income from house property and expenses were not allowed. Though the assessee admitted these

APSARA BHAVANASAI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Years: 2008-09 Apsara Bhavanasai, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Ahvpb 3872H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2019 O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 1, Hyderabad, Dated, 26/03/2018 For Ay 2008-09, Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

property, the assessee was having more than one residential house and the condition to allow the exemption u/s 54F was clarified in the Act and hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Further, the AO observed that the assessee having the knowledge of having two residential houses from which rental income was offered

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BAPU REDDY JALA , NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 153ASection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

house and later, the cash recovered by the police. As per direction of the court, the Police Department handed over the cash to the Income Tax Department. According to the assessee, in these circumstances the said transaction could not be routed through the bank. 5.0 The assessee's claim that the purchaser intended to deposit the cash and obtain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment Narapareddy Hyd on 03.03.2016 against order making addition u/s 143(3). towards LONG

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

MOHA NARENDRA GANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1156/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri A SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 49Section 54BSection 54ESection 55(2)

property of the previous owner before 1st of April, 2001 means the cost of the asset to previous owner or the RMV of the asset are 1-4-2001 at the option of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee’s father had acquired the shares prior to 1-4-2001 on which bonus shares were also allotted

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 704/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 524/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 516/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 523/HYD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeals however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ARUN GUPTA HUF,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 1538/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Years: 2005-06 Sri Arun Gupta (Huf), Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Aahha 7572 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Smt. K.J. Divya – Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2020 Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. K.J. Divya – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2005-06. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in all its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section 271

GANDRA VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,WARANGAL vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(I/C), WARANGAL

In the result appeal is considered partly allowed

ITA 1881/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Gandra Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ramana Reddy, Income Tax, Circle -1 Warangal. (I/C), Warangal Pan – Aiepg9935A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Revenue By : Shri M. Naveen Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2018 Order Per B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,76,555/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act On The Reason That Assessee Has Not Declared The Rental Income On The Property. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Leading To The Penalty Are That Assessee Was An Mla & Was Also Carrying Business Of Maintaining A Petrol Bunk & Transport Business In Individual Capacity. In The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings, A.O Noticed That There Was A Rental Income To The Tune Of Rs. 8,95,000/- From M/S Unitech Wireless & M/S Axis Bank & The Tds Was Credited To The Individual Account & Assessee Also Made The Claim. Since The Corresponding Income Was Not Offered, A.O Asked Assessee As To Why The Same Should Not Be Brought To Tax. It Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K.V. ChalamaiahFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) where the appellant himself admitted that his HUF return was filed subsequent to A.O pointed it out. The filing of the HUF return after completion of assessment proceedings (in the status of individual) was brought to the notice of the appellant’s AR at the time of appeal hearing. Keeping in view the fact that

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

house property: 8.4 In this context, it is important to understand the principle of mutuality before adjudicating the issue on hand. It is well settled principle of law that, in order to fulfil the requirement of mutuality, a mutual association has to establish the crucial criteria that there is identity between contributors and participators / recipients to the fund i.e. there

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 609/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

For Appellant: Sri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, SR.AR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 274

penalty of Rs.13,10,000/- i.e., the sum equal to the amount of the cash of Rs.13,10,000/- received towards sale consideration, in accordance with the provisions of section 271 D of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer passed order u/s 271D of the Act dt.28.09.2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer passed u/s 271D

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R. Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44A

houses and 7 plots in the respective AYs from A.Y 2011-12 to A.Y. 2015-16 were duly shown by the assessee then the correct course would be to tax the turnover for these two years which pertain to AYs.2013-14 and 2014-15 only. At this stage, it is useful to mention that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal