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.

174 results for “house property”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai929Delhi875Karnataka455Jaipur255Ahmedabad212Bangalore174Chennai115Chandigarh79Kolkata77Pune76Indore76Hyderabad66Calcutta50Raipur40Lucknow35Visakhapatnam30Cochin30Nagpur27Surat26Rajkot25Guwahati23Amritsar18Telangana9SC8Cuttack8Allahabad5Rajasthan5Patna4Ranchi4Jodhpur3Agra3Dehradun2Panaji1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 271(1)(c)50Section 143(3)44Penalty39Section 153C36Deduction32Section 10A27Section 27126Section 69B25Section 12A

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

Showing 1–20 of 174 · Page 1 of 9

...
25
Disallowance24
Section 14821

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

house property, business and other sources. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dt.15.12.2008 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5,45,59,686. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1013/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act was opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice in that the submissions of the appellant had not been brought out and considered and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the penalty levied u/ s.27l(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be cancelled

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) are also initiated on account of filing wrong particulars of income and for concealing the particulars of income for the year under house property income.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 213 pages inter alia enclosing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1702/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1701/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1700/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

C. Gangadhar Murthy filed a letter dated 5-11- 2013 in the office of the undersigned enclosing a copy of a manual return along with particulars as below: A.Y. Income Income Income Gross total Total Agricultural from from from income income income House Business Other declared declared declared Property Sources

SRI. RAGHUNATH H. BADDI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 669/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri T.N.Prakash, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

property was declared, the deduction was disallowed by the AO. The AO however allowed deduction of Rs.30,000/- out of the interest paid under the 1st proviso to Sec.24(b) of the Act as the residential house was vacant during the previous year and its annual value was nil. This resulted in an addition to the total income of Rs.22

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property Maimed. Further, penalty proceedings notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 31.05.2021and 02.09.2021 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 9,65,520/-. 3. The AO issued a show cause notice under section

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property Maimed. Further, penalty proceedings notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 31.05.2021and 02.09.2021 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 9,65,520/-. 3. The AO issued a show cause notice under section

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

house property Maimed. Further, penalty proceedings notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 31.05.2021and 02.09.2021 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 9,65,520/-. 3. The AO issued a show cause notice under section

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 250Section 271

271[1][c] of the Act has not been complied with under the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings are independent with that of the assessment proceedings and ought to have verified the facts of the case independently under the facts and circumstances