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.

86 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai339Delhi302Jaipur149Pune130Bangalore128Hyderabad86Chennai69Visakhapatnam63Ahmedabad62Surat60Kolkata56Indore48Rajkot44Lucknow35Chandigarh32Amritsar27Cochin16Patna16Ranchi15Nagpur10Cuttack10Karnataka10Panaji10Jodhpur8Raipur7Allahabad7Guwahati4Agra3Dehradun2SC2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Section 271(1)(c)73Section 153C72Addition to Income71Section 133A54Survey u/s 133A51Section 6844Search & Seizure43Section 132

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

35
Penalty35
Section 271D28
Limitation/Time-bar28
Section 271(1)(c)
Section 274
Section 68

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) cancelled. Therefore, the appellant did not consider it necessary to file an appeal. 9. However, department has filed appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A). Appeal hearing has been originally fixed for hearing on 26.12.2016 as seen by the notice dt.13.10.2016 of the office of the ITAT. 10. The company has been advised

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) cancelled. Therefore, the appellant did not consider it necessary to file an appeal. 9. However, department has filed appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A). Appeal hearing has been originally fixed for hearing on 26.12.2016 as seen by the notice dt.13.10.2016 of the office of the ITAT. 10. The company has been advised

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

Survey " u /s 133A of the Act. the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty u/s 271

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Shanta Sriram Infra & Vs. Dcit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs 4180 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 Order Per V. Durga Rao, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are, the assessee filed original return of income on 16/02/2005 declaring an income of Rs. 95,108/-. The assessee filed another return of income on 29/03/2007 admitting an income of Rs. 3,38,340/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny

S. VENKATESWARA REDDY,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blevenkateswara Reddy Singani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Chetlamallapuram Village, Kurnool. Kallur Mandal, Kurnool Dist. Pan No. Aqxps 9237 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao– AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Neeju Gupta – DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY YELLAREDDYGARI,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1419/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blepradeep Kumar Reddy Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Yellareddygari, No. 2-10, Adoni. Ramapuram Village, Thungabhadra Post, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. Pan No. Afbpy 3827 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao– AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Neeju Gupta – DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 537/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 538/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

SABITHA REPALLE ,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 534/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL ,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKARABAD

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

ITA 532/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 540/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

SABITHA REPALLE,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 536/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

SABITHA REPALLE,VIKARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 535/HYD/2021[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

ANAND METHUKU,VIKRARABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, VIKRARABAD

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

ITA 539/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Sabitha Anand Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hospital, Ward-1, Vikarabad. Vikarabad. Pan No.Abwfs9362E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri VYST Sai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 7. Briefly the stated facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A

SRI AMARENDER REDDY KONDAKINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleamarender Reddy Kondakini, Vs. Ito, Ward-15(1), H.No. 37-93-222/22, Hyderabad. Road No.4, Sainikvihar, Madhuranagar Colony, Naredmet ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad. Pan No. Ajbpk 9261 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao– AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Neeju Gupta – DR
Section 143(3)Section 274

survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs.15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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. 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