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.

53 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Charitable Trustclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka120Delhi111Chennai100Mumbai96Bangalore53Ahmedabad36Hyderabad34Jaipur29Pune25Lucknow23Chandigarh21Allahabad19Cochin15Amritsar14Visakhapatnam12Kolkata12Indore7Nagpur6Surat5Raipur4Jodhpur3Agra3Patna3Rajkot2Ranchi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)69Section 27447Section 12A47Section 143(3)45Addition to Income45Section 153A44Section 1140Penalty40Section 153C

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 746/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

30
Charitable Trust23
Exemption22
Section 27120

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 741/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 744/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

charitable trust, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 along with Form 10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s

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

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 428/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 427/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 426/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 429/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 422/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 420/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 424/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 421/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is not a matter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. VENKATESHA EDUCATION, BENGALURU

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 455/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 52/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

271)(SC) (b) CIT-VII vs. Chetan Das Lachman Das (2012)(25 taxmann.com 227)(Delhi) (b) B Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (52 taxmann.com 449)(Madras) (c) Gopal Lal Bhadrukavs.DCIT (2012)(27 taxmann.com 167)(AP) 18.8 We have noticed earlier that the seized documents relied upon by the AO do not support the case of the AO that the assessee