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.

87 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,148 Mumbai1,019 Ahmedabad333 Jaipur251 Bangalore237 Indore152 Pune134 Raipur132 Karnataka127 Chennai112 Kolkata106 Hyderabad87 Chandigarh78 Rajkot50 Surat46 Visakhapatnam45 Nagpur39 Calcutta35 Amritsar32 Lucknow28 Allahabad26 Cochin26 Patna20 Agra18 Kerala14 Guwahati13 Ranchi11 Dehradun9 Panaji8 Cuttack7 Jabalpur6 Telangana4 SC4 Jodhpur2 Varanasi1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64 Section 143(3)54 Section 80I50 Section 14A40 Section 271(1)(c)35 Section 13232 Search & Seizure31 Section 153A30 Section 143(2)

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

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

24

Survey u/s 133A21

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act which got barred by limitation under section 275(1) of the Act.” 3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other appeal also i.e., ITA 231/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 except the amounts involved. 4. Before us, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals

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

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act which got barred by limitation under section 275(1) of the Act.” 3. Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in other appeal also i.e., ITA 231/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 except the amounts involved. 4. Before us, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in both the appeals

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 330/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

penalty proceeded u/ s 271(1)( c) is not justified. 25. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2.2 The assessee also filed a petition dated 04/11/2020

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 331/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

penalty proceeded u/ s 271(1)( c) is not justified. 25. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2.2 The assessee also filed a petition dated 04/11/2020

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. 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

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

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 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

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. 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

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

2,30,00,000/-. After reducing cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses in connection with transfer, capital gains worked out to Rs. 1,98,26,085/-. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 1,96,40,000 was claimed as deduction u/s 54, comprising of Rs. 90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property

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

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

2,30,00,000/-. After reducing cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses in connection with transfer, capital gains worked out to Rs. 1,98,26,085/-. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 1,96,40,000 was claimed as deduction u/s 54, comprising of Rs. 90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 143/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

For Appellant: Sri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Sri A. Sitarama Rao

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the I.T.Act for the default in furnishing of Tax Audit Report. It ought to have been considered the fact that the Tax Audit Report is physically filed before

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

u/s. 156 of the Act, vide paragraph no.5,he specifically mentioned as under: "If you intend to appeal against the assessment/fine/penalty you may present an appeal under para-1 of Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the CIT(A)-10 within 30 days of the receipt of this notice...." After that assessee applied for stay to various

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

u/s. 156 of the Act, vide paragraph no.5,he specifically mentioned as under: "If you intend to appeal against the assessment/fine/penalty you may present an appeal under para-1 of Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the CIT(A)-10 within 30 days of the receipt of this notice...." After that assessee applied for stay to various

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

47,554/- @ 12.5% = Rs.38,24,93,444/-) 12. In the order dt. 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of 80IA deduction in his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. There is no reference of examining the issue of 80IA afresh by the Assessing Officer, though, the Assessing Officer vide his earlier order

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

47,554/- @ 12.5% = Rs.38,24,93,444/-) 12. In the order dt. 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of 80IA deduction in his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. There is no reference of examining the issue of 80IA afresh by the Assessing Officer, though, the Assessing Officer vide his earlier order

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

47,554/- @ 12.5% = Rs.38,24,93,444/-) 12. In the order dt. 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of 80IA deduction in his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. There is no reference of examining the issue of 80IA afresh by the Assessing Officer, though, the Assessing Officer vide his earlier order