Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi754 Mumbai657 Ahmedabad179 Jaipur141 Karnataka104 Pune94 Chennai78 Bangalore65 Indore61 Kolkata61 Surat54 Raipur47 Chandigarh37 Hyderabad36 Lucknow30 Amritsar29 Agra25 Allahabad24 Cochin21 Cuttack18 Ranchi13 Nagpur13 Rajkot10 Dehradun8 Jodhpur7 Patna6 Jabalpur4 Panaji4 Visakhapatnam3 Rajasthan2 Guwahati2 SC1 Calcutta1 Telangana1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)45 Section 15835 Addition to Income26 Section 143(2)21 Section 143(3)20 Penalty19 Section 26316 Section 13212 Section 115J11

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 36 · Page 1 of 2

Survey u/s 133A10

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

INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 409/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 467/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

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

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

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

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 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

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

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 35/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

158) (SC) that a wrong claim cannot be considered for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 7. Ld.DR, however, submitted that penalty is warranted as assessee has filed NIL return, even though there is liability for 115JB. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the case law relied upon. As seen from the assessment order

DCIT,CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DR. REDDY'S LABOURATORIES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sekhar &For Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar

Section 115JSection 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

158, submitted that no penalty is leviable in the cases of disclosure of particulars by assessee. Also relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519, submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and levy of penalty not only discretionary in nature but such discretion is required

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

NAMRATA N SHIRODKAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1355/HYD/2018[01/04/1989 to 27/07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2020

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

For Appellant: Ms. K. Hemalatha, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Mitra, D.R

Section 132Section 158

158 BC of the Act. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the provision of Sec.158 BD is reproduced hereunder:- “158BD. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents

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, CIRCLE-2(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAKINADA SEZ PRIVATE LIMITED,, R.R.DIST

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1012/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and the same is ordered to be cancelled.” 5. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The issue of netting off of the interest or treating the interest income earned by the assessee as taxable under the head “income from other source

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: 9.3 After going through all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments put forth by the AR of the appellant the conclusions that can be arrived at are: i. The assessee filed all details regarding land transaction along with the return of income declaring