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.

128 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,114Mumbai968Ahmedabad254Jaipur215Bangalore196Kolkata133Hyderabad128Chennai123Karnataka123Raipur114Indore105Pune93Chandigarh64Lucknow55Surat49Amritsar47Allahabad44Cochin41Calcutta34Visakhapatnam30Nagpur22Rajkot18Cuttack14Kerala14Patna13Agra10Dehradun9Guwahati9Jodhpur7Panaji6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Section 153C80Addition to Income79Section 80I48Section 271(1)(c)44Penalty38Disallowance38Section 6836Cash Deposit

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

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

32
Section 143(2)31
Search & Seizure30
Deduction29

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

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. 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 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

DCIT,CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DR. REDDY'S LABOURATORIES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sekhar &For Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 115JSection 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bulk drugs, APIs, Formulations and other pharmaceutical products, filed its return of income on 29.11.2006 admitting 'nil' income under normal provisions

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)

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

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

90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s

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

90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 27/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 172Section 194

penalty has been imposed with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 274; 5 M/s. PACC Container Line Pvt. Ltd. (h) an order made by an Assessing Officer (other than Deputy Commissioner) under the provisions of this Act in the case of such person or classes of persons as the Board may, having regard

RAVINDRA REDDY PALLAVALLI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 763/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devishri Ravinder Reddy Vs Income Tax Officer Pallavali Ward 8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Amhpp 1849 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

90,000/- 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable”. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had admitted additional income because the assessee did not have the necessary confirmation letters

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)

penalty is leviable. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the order 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

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 931/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri A.V. Raghu RamFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal