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.

17 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi136Mumbai109Kolkata64Jaipur64Pune62Indore38Ahmedabad34Bangalore21Hyderabad17Amritsar17Raipur17Chennai16Ranchi16Surat12Cochin10Guwahati9Cuttack8Chandigarh7Patna7Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Rajkot2Calcutta1Karnataka1Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)37Section 153A31Section 13218Addition to Income17Section 153C13Section 143(3)10Penalty10Section 1319Section 139(1)

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

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

7
Undisclosed Income7
Unexplained Investment6
Section 2714

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

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) would not apply to proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 15.3 Finally, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.635/Hyd/2022 & Sa No.49/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sarat Gopal Boppana Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Afcpb8083K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) thereto. During the penalty

SHAVVA SUDHEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A come into play. Accordingly, I deem this a fit case for levy of penalty u/s

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)

271(1)(c) which is applicable to concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in regular assessments . CIT (A) should have appreciated that the correct Explanation in a search case is Explanation 5A. 4. The learned Cit(A) erred in equating Explanation-1 with Explanation-5A as both the sections have different parameters, and they operate in their

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)

271(1)(c) which is applicable to concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in regular assessments . CIT (A) should have appreciated that the correct Explanation in a search case is Explanation 5A. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in equating Explanation-1 with Explanation-5A as both the sections have different parameters and they operate in their

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)

271(1)(c) which is applicable to concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in regular assessments . CIT (A) should have appreciated that the correct Explanation in a search case is Explanation 5A. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in equating Explanation-1 with Explanation-5A as both the sections have different parameters and they operate in their

KISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c). Rejecting the various explanations Page 2 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal given by the assessee and invoking the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment Narapareddy Hyd on 03.03.2016 against order making addition u/s 143(3). towards LONG

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 523/HYD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2,899/-, Rs. 4,639, Rs. 17,498/- and Rs. 93,420/- for the AYs: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 respectively by rejecting the plea of the assessee that inadvertently the interest income earned by the assessee was omitted to be taken

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 704/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2,899/-, Rs. 4,639, Rs. 17,498/- and Rs. 93,420/- for the AYs: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 respectively by rejecting the plea of the assessee that inadvertently the interest income earned by the assessee was omitted to be taken

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 516/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2,899/-, Rs. 4,639, Rs. 17,498/- and Rs. 93,420/- for the AYs: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 respectively by rejecting the plea of the assessee that inadvertently the interest income earned by the assessee was omitted to be taken

ARUN GUPTA (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 524/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2,899/-, Rs. 4,639, Rs. 17,498/- and Rs. 93,420/- for the AYs: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 respectively by rejecting the plea of the assessee that inadvertently the interest income earned by the assessee was omitted to be taken