BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

91 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,232Mumbai1,062Ahmedabad334Jaipur300Bangalore210Indore158Karnataka126Pune125Kolkata122Raipur117Chennai104Hyderabad91Chandigarh72Surat58Visakhapatnam52Allahabad49Rajkot47Amritsar39Nagpur35Calcutta34Cochin33Lucknow27Cuttack14Kerala14Agra12Dehradun12Jodhpur10Panaji10Patna10Jabalpur10Guwahati9SC4Telangana4Varanasi3Ranchi2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63Section 143(3)45Section 271(1)(c)41Section 13227Penalty23Section 15822Search & Seizure22Survey u/s 133A22Section 153A

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through page no. 8 of the reassessment order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the relevant portion of which

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

21
Section 143(2)21
Section 133A20
Section 142(1)15
ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Hyderabad
16 Mar 2023
AY 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)

48,690/-. Thereafter, scrutiny assessment was completed vide order u/s 153A dt.30.04.2021 by assessing the income at Rs.3,14,91,370/-. Since the assessee had declared additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000/- on account of search only, Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed penalty order u/s 271

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)

48,690/-. Thereafter, scrutiny assessment was completed vide order u/s 153A dt.30.04.2021 by assessing the income at Rs.3,14,91,370/-. Since the assessee had declared additional income of Rs.2,07,00,000/- on account of search only, Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and passed penalty order u/s 271

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

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 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 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. 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

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 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

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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record

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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 10.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961, dated 30/12/2009, which is placed on record

NAGAIAH KEKKIRENI,SURYAPET vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

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

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) is not passed within time. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 02/01/2014, declaring an income of Rs. 4,48,780/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section

RAMACHANDRAN BANDHUVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aczpb3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 Erroneous To The Extent It Is Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Levy Of Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T Act. Without Giving Proper Opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Observed That The Transaction Of Sale Doesn'T Fall During The Previous Year Relevant For Assessment Year Under Consideration As The Registration Took Place On. 20.01.2016 Relevant For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

48,000/- in account payee cheque or Demand draft or use of ECS through a bank account. Admittedly the appellant has kept the cash with himself from 20.01.2016 to 07.12.2016. 5.3.4. As per the provisions of section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, No Person shall take or accept from any other person, any loan or deposit

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

VISHNU PRIYA FOODS ,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the order of Pr

ITA 446/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Vishnu Priya Foods Ito, Ward-2 C/O P Murali & Co., C.As Vs. Nizamabad 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500 082 Pan: Aakfv6377M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. P. Muralimohan Rao Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-15 Against The Order Of The Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad Dated 19.03.2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Firm, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 17.10.2015 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.1,81,287/-. During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao On Verification Of Audit Report Found That The Asesssee Has Claimed Vat Payment Of

For Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

48,689/- and CST payment of Rs.1,03,609/-. In order to verify the correctness of the claim, AO addressed a letter to the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), Bodhan Circle u/s 133(6) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 24.11.2017. The CTO, Bodhan Circle informed that necessary challans/ records were not traced out in the office for verification of genuineness

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

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assuming for a moment, the assessee came to know the assessment order passed by the A.O only on 25/03/2022, but fact remains that still there is a delay of more than one year from the date she claimed to have received the assessment order or came to know about

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

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assuming for a moment, the assessee came to know the assessment order passed by the A.O only on 25/03/2022, but fact remains that still there is a delay of more than one year from the date she claimed to have received the assessment order or came to know about

S. VEERAREDDY GARDENS, PATANCHERU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, SANGAREDDY, SANGA REDDY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 S. Veera Reddy Gardens, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patancheru, Near Yellamma Sangareddy. Temple, Medak. Pan: Acifs 3167 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The maximum penalty and maximum penalty are worked out as under: Income sought to be evaded Rs. 8,03,000 Tax thereon (Incl edu cess) Rs. 2,48,127 Minimum penalty = 100% of tax sought to be evaded Rs. 2,48,127 Maximum penalty = 300% of tax sought