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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai147 Delhi144 Karnataka99 Jaipur52 Chennai39 Calcutta34 Ahmedabad25 Chandigarh23 Raipur21 Lucknow19 Bangalore17 Indore16 Surat11 Hyderabad10 Agra5 Pune4 SC2 Telangana2 Kolkata2 Cochin1 Jodhpur1 Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 271D15 Section 26310 Section 143(1)9 Addition to Income9 Search & Seizure7 Section 2716 Section 153A4 Section 271(1)4 Penalty

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

3

Section 271(1)(c)2

Limitation/Time-bar2

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

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

364 to 366/Ind./2022 dated 19.07.2023 wherein the Tribunal has held in Para Nos.8 to 11 as under: “8. We have considered rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The penalty u/s 271D

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for not disclosing the same in the original return filed on 15.10.2010.” 21. Similarly for the A.Y 2011-12 at page 8 and para 5, the assessee had also admitted an amount of Rs.4.50 crores during the assessement proceedings and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping