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.

5 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka21Bangalore5Hyderabad4Ahmedabad3Kolkata1Mumbai1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 13916Section 27112Section 139(1)8Section 139(4)8Section 271F8Section 269S6Section 271D5Penalty5Section 271D(2)4Deduction4TDS4

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

charitable trust and had received the amount of Rs.15,64,50,000 in cash from one of its trustees, viz., Sh. K Muniraju. The default, if any, was of a technical or venial nature for which the assessee was not liable to penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

section 139(4) of the Act,hence, requested to cancel the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habituate defaulter and not filing returns of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the act, therefore, argued that there is no case for taking

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

section 139(4) of the Act,hence, requested to cancel the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habituate defaulter and not filing returns of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the act, therefore, argued that there is no case for taking

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

section 139(4) of the Act,hence, requested to cancel the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habituate defaulter and not filing returns of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the act, therefore, argued that there is no case for taking

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2606/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

section 139(4) of the Act,hence, requested to cancel the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habituate defaulter and not filing returns of income within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the act, therefore, argued that there is no case for taking