Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210 Mumbai209 Ahmedabad58 Jaipur54 Pune46 Raipur43 Chennai39 Bangalore38 Allahabad24 Chandigarh23 Hyderabad21 Kolkata18 Indore13 Ranchi13 Cochin12 Nagpur10 Agra8 Lucknow8 Surat8 Jodhpur7 Patna6 Dehradun5 Rajkot4 Jabalpur3 Amritsar3 Panaji2 Guwahati1 SC1 Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Addition to Income17 Section 26316 Section 271(1)(c)13 Section 143(3)12 Section 143(2)11 Section 1329 Survey u/s 133A9 Section 133A8 Section 127

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

8

Section 142(1)8

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VARSITY EDUCATION MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (322 ITR 158) (S.C) where it has been clearly held that merely for the reason of claim made by the assessee is not accepted

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib

ANNAPURNA BODDU,WEST GODAVARI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 4. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee to explain as to why the Long-Term Capital Gain should not be added to the total income of the assessee. He also confronted the statement recorded of his son Sri Boddu Srinivas, u/s

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. INCREDIBLE INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 271ASection 274

158 (SC).\"\n4\nITA.No.605/Hyd./2022\n4.1. Before proceeding to adjudicate the issues raised\nby the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 it is\nappropriate to discuss the scope of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules,\n1963. Therefore, for ready reference, we quote Rule 27 of ITAT\nRules, 1963 as under:\n“27. The respondent, though

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)C are being initiated.” 7.1. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of business as the assessee had entered into the JDA. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had in fact had entered into JDA, which was akin to partnership, as there was an element

SINGANAMALA SARALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

u/s. 153C of the Act, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee had received sales consideration over and above the registered sale deed, in cash, which was not accounted for by the assessee amounting to Rs.9 Crores. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 25.09.2021 making the addition

ORCHASP LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

ITA 182/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Orchasp Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabcc4776F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Appellate Order Passed By The Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant. 2. The Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Amount Of Investment Made Is Completely In Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company Which Is Revenue In Nature & Not A Capital Expenditure. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Investments Written Off Of Rs.3,60,72,141/- Since The Said Amount Was Not Received From The Third Party To The Subsidiary & Thus, The Same Amount Was Written Off By The Virtue Of The Circular No. 69 Dt. 27-07-2011 Issued By Rbi.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act since the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 12. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Grounds of appeal No.1

M/S PRAGATHI GREEN MEADOWS & RESORTS PVT LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. A.R

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147

158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Apex court held that borrowed funds advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency, if it is sought to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii), amount advanced to sister concern was by way of commercial expediency, matter was to be remanded to Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with

ACIT,CIRCLE-16(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S PRAGATI GREEN MEADOWS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. A.R

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147

158 Taxman 74 (SC), the Apex court held that borrowed funds advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency, if it is sought to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii), amount advanced to sister concern was by way of commercial expediency, matter was to be remanded to Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 29/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nCA A SrinivasFor Respondent: \nMS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

158\n5,20,61,626 75.48,935\nAs per Books\nof accounts\n146,53,44,162 1,27,02,093 146,53,44,160\nTurnovers as\nper VAT 200 Tax\n126,72,77,290\n10,64,85,917\nAs per Books\nof accounts\n0\n53,24,295\n5,44,90,413\n79,01,109\n142