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.

143 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 45clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,311 Mumbai1,155 Ahmedabad378 Jaipur323 Bangalore270 Indore197 Kolkata183 Hyderabad143 Chennai140 Karnataka125 Raipur124 Pune120 Chandigarh103 Rajkot59 Surat51 Allahabad44 Cuttack41 Amritsar41 Visakhapatnam38 Calcutta34 Cochin31 Lucknow30 Nagpur30 Patna18 Guwahati17 Agra15 Kerala14 Jabalpur13 Dehradun12 Jodhpur11 SC7 Ranchi5 Telangana5 Panaji4 Varanasi3 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C88 Addition to Income83 Section 143(3)71 Search & Seizure42 Section 13236 Section 153A36 Disallowance36 Section 271(1)(c)31 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

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...

25

Limitation/Time-bar21

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

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2362/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2360/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2365/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2361/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2364/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A, when the same will be applied as quoted supra. Therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this are allowed. 18. In the result, appeal

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

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

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 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

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

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

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 513/HYD/2022[2015-165]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-165

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the above said purposes, ld.AR had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal. “22. The second question concerns the interpretation and application of Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) and whether it is attracted in the facts of this case

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)

45,84,695/- and Rs. 1,37,54,085/- respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I levy a penalty of Rs. 46,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions and made detailed submissions along with case law it relied upon. However, Ld.CIT