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.

541 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,115Delhi2,789Bangalore541Ahmedabad481Chennai407Kolkata339Jaipur289Pune209Hyderabad185Indore138Chandigarh101Surat92Raipur85Rajkot65Nagpur62Lucknow53Visakhapatnam51Allahabad46Calcutta39Amritsar35Guwahati31Cochin27Karnataka26Ranchi25SC22Jodhpur17Cuttack17Panaji13Varanasi12Telangana11Agra9Jabalpur8Patna8Dehradun8Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)110Section 143(3)61Addition to Income61Penalty58Section 153C54Section 14852Disallowance49Section 27440Section 133A38Deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

disallowed deduction on plea that assessee was disentitled to claim double deduction of depreciation as well as deduction under section 24 and made addition to its income. The AO also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c

Showing 1–20 of 541 · Page 1 of 28

...
32
Section 4030
Section 25030

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1518/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 94

disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had demonstrated

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1867/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 966/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1866/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1869/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2527/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1870/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1868/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

M/S GOGGA GURUSHANTHIAH & BROS.,HOSPET vs. ACIT, BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 502/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2007-08 M/S. Gogga Gurushantiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of & Brothers, Income-Tax, P. No. 4, Mine Owners & Circle – I, Mineral Grinders Nehru Co-Op Bellary. Colony, Hospet. Pan : Aacfg 6895 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. H. Siva Prasad Reddy - ITPFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified is up holding the proposition of The Assessing Officer in levy of Penalty U/s 271(1)( c) for AY 2007-08 2. The learned

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB

SRI RAJAN R SRINIVASAN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year

ITA 521/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri Rajan R Srinivasan, No.2965, 12Th Main, Hal 2Nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560008. … Appellant Pan:Afsps 7509F Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Incomet-Ax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bairav Kuttaiah, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/01/2009 Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In This Appeal, Th Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Wherein The Cit(Appeals) Confirmed The Order Of The Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Under Which The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Imposed On The Assessee By The Ao Are As Follows: The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ From M/S. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pune Besides Income From Business. The Ao Concluded The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessee Claimed As Expenditure Incurred In Connection With Business Of The Assessee A Page 2 Of 10 Sum Of Rs.8,57,872/-. These Expenses Were Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That They Were Purely Personal In Nature & The Assessee Could Not Establish The Nexus Of Those Expenses With The Business Of The Assessee. In Respect Of Addition Made As Aforesaid, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Levied On The Assessee For Concealing Particulars Of Income & Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Bairav Kuttaiah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows: The assessee is an individual deriving income under the head ‘salary’ from M/s. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pune besides income from business. The AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee claimed

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

ITA 1604/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Appeal Are As Under: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

Disallowance of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-. 2.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated

H VENKATESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance. However, the lower authority levied a penalty for concealment of income in accordance with the provisions of section 271(1)(c

SMT. LAKSHMI RAM RAO,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA No

ITA 187/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. There is a delay of 61 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an Affidavit of the assessee. 3. I have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c