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.

119 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai733Delhi622Jaipur218Ahmedabad194Bangalore119Karnataka103Kolkata103Hyderabad92Pune81Indore72Chennai67Surat66Visakhapatnam57Chandigarh47Raipur44Calcutta35Lucknow28Rajkot26Ranchi21Amritsar15Nagpur14Agra13Cuttack11Patna10Guwahati6Jodhpur5Allahabad4Telangana4Dehradun3Cochin3Jabalpur2Varanasi1Rajasthan1Gauhati1Panaji1SC1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 271(1)(c)47Section 143(3)46Section 14846Penalty42Section 14732Section 133A29Disallowance26Deduction

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be held as validly imposable in the instant case: - i) During the course of search the appellant admitted the long term capital gain

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

25
Long Term Capital Gains24
Capital Gains23
Transfer Pricing22
ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, CA
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

long term capital gain brought to tax in the reassessment proceedings and addition to business income by disallowance of labour charges, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1), HUBBALLI vs. SHRI SADASHIVAYYA S SOPPIMATH , HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

penalty u/s 271(c) are stated in brief: The assessee is an individual and is a Doctor. He filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.23.74 lakhs. During the course of asst. proceedings the assessee submitted to the AO that he has earned long term capital gains

SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1913/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri V. Narendra Sharma
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 271Section 274Section 54

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing the inaccurate particulars. The assessee filed their detailed reply and submitted that the entire rental income was declared in the return including the hire charges received on amenities but the hire charges received on amenities were provided under the head income from business. Insofar as the long term capital gains

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

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) thereon; apart from declaring income / loss from other heads such as 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) of the Act were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 37

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act is initiated separately.[Addition Rs.33,00,000/-]” 2.2 Accordingly he added into the total income of the assessee the entire payments made to these two companies of Rs.33.00/- crores. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has purchased shares of Kemwell Infrastructure

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. 2. Facts of the case are that the A.O. made addition of Rs.2.06 crores as long term capital gain

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

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(1A) of the Act and accordingly a penalty

SHRI. UTTAMCHAND KHATRI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 823/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, JDIT
Section 10(28)Section 68

long term capital gain is not allowable. f. Ignorance of the assesee about shares and penny stock companies: Assessee has failed to show of having any knowledge about the shares traded and having any knowledge about the fundamentals of the penny stock companies. Page 4 of 8 g. Financial analysis of the penny stock companies: The networth of the penny

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale
Section 10(38)Section 68

Capital Gains under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had complied with all the pre-requisite conditions prescribed u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961, thereby making the "non-granting" erroneous. (c) The lower authorities have not considered the documents and evidences placed, and the various judgments of the Apex Court

SANTHOSH DEVI AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1585/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale
Section 10(38)Section 68

Capital Gains under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had complied with all the pre-requisite conditions prescribed u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961, thereby making the "non-granting" erroneous. (c) The lower authorities have not considered the documents and evidences placed, and the various judgments of the Apex Court

SNEHLATHA AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1584/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale
Section 10(38)Section 68

Capital Gains under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had complied with all the pre-requisite conditions prescribed u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961, thereby making the "non-granting" erroneous. (c) The lower authorities have not considered the documents and evidences placed, and the various judgments of the Apex Court

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared