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.

63 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 71clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi892Mumbai692Ahmedabad266Jaipur227Bangalore200Chennai145Karnataka128Kolkata121Pune93Chandigarh78Indore67Hyderabad63Surat60Raipur54Allahabad48Cochin38Calcutta36Nagpur31Amritsar30Lucknow26Visakhapatnam25Guwahati15Dehradun14Rajkot13Varanasi8Ranchi7Cuttack6Patna5Panaji4Agra3SC3Telangana3Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income46Section 80I45Section 271(1)(c)38Section 153A31Section 13230Search & Seizure23Section 133A20Survey u/s 133A

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

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 143(2)19
Section 14716
Penalty13

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. 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. 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. 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

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 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

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 146/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

71, wherein the assessee did not furnish any explanation and so levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was upheld. 4.5 In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the assessee has concealed income within the meaning of the provisions of section

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)

71,90,540/-. Since both the amounts were exempt from taxation, assessee filed NIL return. U/s. 115JB also assessee filed NIL return. In the course of scrutiny assessment, it was noticed that Long Term Capital Gain was not exempt from computation u/s. 115JB and accordingly, assessee filed revised computation and stated to have paid taxes as well. The Assessing Officer

BEKKAM CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Bekkam Constructions, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 15(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaffb 6928B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/11/2021

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

71,341/-. The total income consists an amount of Rs.98,81,636/- (estimated income @ 8% on the gross receipts of Rs. 12,35,20,450/-) and Interest income on FOR of Rs.89,705/-. Since the addition made in the assessment on account of estimation on gross receipts as against the income declared by the assessee was in the nature

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2186/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Deepak P. Ripote
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92B

penalty notices u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB along with Draft assessment order dated 30.12.2016, which tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. 2. Erred in making adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs. 4,79,143/- in respect of transaction of Corporate Guarantee provided to DCO Bank, Singapore on behalf of loan to BS Resource Pte Limited

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

71,960 4. Thereafter, assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act was completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. AO invoked penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2

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

71,960 4. Thereafter, assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act was completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. AO invoked penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2

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

71,960 4. Thereafter, assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act was completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. AO invoked penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2

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

71,960 4. Thereafter, assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act was completed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. AO invoked penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty on the assessee for Rs.2

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2367/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2255/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Penalty notices u/s. 271AA, 271BA and 271(1)(c) along 2. with the draft assessment order dated 15.12.2017, would tantamount to passing of Final Assessment Order. The Ld.TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without properly appreciating the submissions made by the assessee Erred in rejecting the search applied by the taxpayer which was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. P SHIVMOHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) was also passed on 21.11.2019 levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that certain incriminating materials were found and seized during the course of search and the statement of Shri P. Shivmohan Reddy i.e., the assessee was recorded in which he accepted that he has been receiving money

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied if the return of income is at a 10551 i.e., in view of the amendment by the Finance Actl 2002 with effect from April 1, 2003 in Explanation 4 to the section. In deciding the matter, the hon'ble court referred to various precedents. The following section of the judgment