BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

16 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur33Hyderabad32Chennai22Bangalore16Delhi13Mumbai9Ahmedabad9Indore7Visakhapatnam4Surat4Kolkata4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Lucknow2Patna2Raipur2Cochin1Panaji1Agra1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 27437Section 271(1)(c)24Section 69B20Section 153A15Section 14811Penalty10Addition to Income9Section 1478Section 131

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1002/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271\nare mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law.\nr)\nThe assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet\nspecifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On\nthe basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the\nassessee.\ns)\nTaking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee\nguilty of another limb

8
Section 2717
Cash Deposit5
Disallowance5

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1144/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 998/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1000/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Anil Kumar H., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 274Section 44A

demonetization period i.e. during FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs.4,31,84,135/- and accordingly the assessment proceedings were reopened u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, considering the return of Income filed by the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.1,57,170/-, the returned income was accepted by ld. AO considering

NANDIGOWDANAHALLI MANJAPPA PUSHPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 384/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

demonetization period and\nsources for remaining cash deposits made of Rs. 14, 20,000/ is not found to\nbe satisfactorily explained. Hence, assessee is not furnished any\ndocumentary evidence to substantiate his claim in respect to remaining cash\ndeposit of Rs. 14,20,000/- and same is added to the returned income u/s\n69A of the IT Act, 1961. (Addition

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 799/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

penalty notice was also issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act which was not responded to and therefore assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) at the total income of Rs.1,51,93,220 wherein addition of Rs.76,20,000 was made. 4. Facts relating to this additions is that it was found that during the course of survey

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 800/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

penalty notice was also issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act which was not responded to and therefore assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) at the total income of Rs.1,51,93,220 wherein addition of Rs.76,20,000 was made. 4. Facts relating to this additions is that it was found that during the course of survey

HOLADAGADDE HALAPPAGOWDA DEVARAJ,CHIKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

ITA 2361/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)
Section 271Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of bearing of the appeal. appellant humbly prays before the honourable Commissioner of the Income Tax Appeals to grant relief by deleting the additions made to the income. 5) The Appellant craves permission

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 153ASection 69B

penalty or\nlaunching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a\nwhole and officers concerned in poor light.\n2. I\nam further directed to invite your attention to the\nInstructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred\nabove, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on\ngathering evidences during Search/Survey