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.

58 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,513Mumbai1,213Kolkata514Jaipur353Bangalore280Pune274Ahmedabad245Chennai180Surat178Indore177Hyderabad138Karnataka112Amritsar83Chandigarh82Ranchi74Cuttack67Rajkot64Raipur64Cochin60Visakhapatnam58Allahabad56Lucknow29Guwahati25Patna24Nagpur24Dehradun24Agra24Kerala14Jodhpur14Panaji6Jabalpur4Telangana3Varanasi3SC2Rajasthan2Calcutta2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)141Penalty56Addition to Income42Section 143(3)38Section 27438Section 14423Section 14820Section 142(1)17Section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

u/s 148 shows that the assessee's intention is to escape tax? 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in ignoring the fact that mens rea or intention of assessee has no relevance in civil penalties as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dharmendra Textile

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

17
Capital Gains16
Section 14715
Long Term Capital Gains13

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 132/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s 158BFA held the penalty is not mandatory but discretionary. Hence, argued that the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act penalty is also not automatic and it is on the basis of merits of the case. For ready reference, we extract hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under; 271AAB

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 126/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

u/s 158BFA held the penalty is not mandatory but discretionary. Hence, argued that the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act penalty is also not automatic and it is on the basis of merits of the case. For ready reference, we extract hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under; 271AAB

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

274 rws 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated. The contention of the appellant has been considered and it is seen from the penalty order passed u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CHILUKURI HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

274, dated 28/02/2014, therefore, prayed that same has to be quashed. The ld. CIT(A) by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271 is invalid and cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. For the sake

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dated 30/03/2014 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1)(c) was passed on 26/09/2014. 5. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) and issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. 3. On appeal

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

U/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act dated 08/11/2011 and the same was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 30/11/2022 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by granting relief to the extent of Rs. 17,20,43,863/- and confirmed the additions of Rs.1,46,59,990/- and thereby

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 07.03.2013 and imposed penalty of Rs.98,77,719/- against S.Chinatalli and Rs.1,14,72,375/- against Shri K.V.V.Prasad. The AO in the penalty order reiterated the observations of the CIT(A) and the assessment order which reads as under : 1. The assessee while entering into an agreement for purchase of land from RK Mittal

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 07.03.2013 and imposed penalty of Rs.98,77,719/- against S.Chinatalli and Rs.1,14,72,375/- against Shri K.V.V.Prasad. The AO in the penalty order reiterated the observations of the CIT(A) and the assessment order which reads as under : 1. The assessee while entering into an agreement for purchase of land from RK Mittal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

ITA 532/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 274Section 292Section 292B

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') i.e. for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, makes the notice invalid or not? 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business of trading in shares, rental income and remuneration

MARPUDI PUSHKALA RANI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/VIZ/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Marpudi Pushkala Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), D.No. 12-7-110/2, Flat No. 304, Guntur. Smr Vinay Elegance, Kesavanagar Colony, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. Pan No. Awmpm 8121 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before the Tribunal. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dt 31-05-2012 levying penalty u/s

DR. BALABHADRA SUJATHA,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DY. CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/VIZ/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 10. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the coordinate bench

DR. BALABHADRA SUJATHA,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DY. CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 250/VIZ/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 10. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the coordinate bench

B.ADINARAYANA,,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE ITO,, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/VIZ/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleb. Adinarayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, S/O Ramu Naidu, D.No. 5-9-32, Anakapalle. Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle-1. Pan No. Aetpb 5443 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S. Murthy – FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Aravindakshan – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and penalty was imposed. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before the Tribunal. (B. Adinarayana) “The appellant contends that the notice issued u/s

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Das – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs. 3,80,430/- was imposed. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before the Tribunal. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) of the Income (Yaramati Veera Raghavulu) Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, dated 29/03/2014 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1)(c) was passed on 25/09/2014. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed

TAMMANA SURYA NARAYANA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/VIZ/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletammana Surya Narayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. : Sri Swamy Ayyappa Machilipatnam. Traders, 27/299-3, Pathramannapet, Ed Plots, Machilipatnam. Pan No. Adhpt 8046 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. Rama Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 14. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment

T.SATYANARAYANA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/VIZ/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Feb 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletalluri Satyanarayana, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Prop. : Sairam Parlour, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 47-11-9, Diamond Park, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaqpt 9170 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U.Mini Chandran,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 31/12/2009 by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 31/12/2009 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1)(c) was passed on 31/10/2012. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty