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.

84 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 125clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi454Mumbai434Karnataka127Ahmedabad124Jaipur113Bangalore84Chennai79Pune58Hyderabad53Indore40Raipur38Allahabad37Ranchi35Amritsar34Calcutta34Kolkata34Surat29Chandigarh28Rajkot24Visakhapatnam24Lucknow17Agra13Nagpur13Cochin10Panaji8Dehradun7Cuttack6Jabalpur5Patna3SC2Rajasthan2Telangana2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 271(1)(c)42Penalty41Disallowance37Section 10A35Section 143(3)29Section 15428Section 153C25Section 132(4)

SMT. ROOPA SURYANARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 997/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos. 997 To 1001/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09) Smt. Roopa Suryanarayana, Prop. Yashasvi Packs, No.44, 4Th Cross, Ad Halli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore-560 040. . Appellant Pan: Admpr 9875K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rukmini Attir, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

125; b) ITO Vs. Smt. JenabaiMohd. (1976) 2 TTJ (Bang) 777; c) Ram Saran Gupta Vs. ACIT (1997) 58 TTJ (JP) 702; d) CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC); e) KP Madhusudhan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC); f) Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 299 (All). 8. At the time of appeal

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

25
Deduction25
Section 27124
Section 27422

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 787/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act, of Rs.2,76,354/-, Rs.4,78,950/- and Rs.40,000/- for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 respectively. ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 18 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 786/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act, of Rs.2,76,354/-, Rs.4,78,950/- and Rs.40,000/- for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 respectively. ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 18 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act, of Rs.2,76,354/-, Rs.4,78,950/- and Rs.40,000/- for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 respectively. ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 18 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits

SRI.K.VIJAY ARYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1799/BANG/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c). The relevant observations of Their Lordships are extracted hereunder for reference:- “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various grounds set out therein. If the order passed by the authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

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

125 taxmann.com 266 (SC). In this case too, the director of the company had deposited the cash amount with the company but the High Court had upheld the imposition of penalty by holding that there was absence of reasonable cause. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Chandra Cement Ltd [2016] 74 taxmann.com 75 (Rajasthan) the imposition of penalty

M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) are specified would not satisfy the requirements of law. Therefore, in the light of these facts, initiation of penalty proceedings is not in accordance with law and deserves to be annulled. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1812/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) are specified would not satisfy the requirements of law. Therefore, in the light of these facts, initiation of penalty proceedings is not in accordance with law and deserves to be annulled. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

SRI. S.D. RADDI,DHARWAD vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A. Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c). The relevant observations of Their Lordships are extracted hereunder for reference:- “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various grounds set out therein. If the order passed by the authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Elamurugu G., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) wherein it was held as follows:- “ In assessment proceedings, revenue forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 . True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they

RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

271(1)(c) of the Act, period of limitation for passing the penalty order is 6 months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated. As stated above, the initiation has been by notice dated 1.4.2015. The 6 months commence from end of the month i.e. 30.4.2015 and expires on 31.10.2015. The penalty

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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 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

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

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

SRI C ASWATHANARAYANA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds raised for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10

ITA 2583/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.2583 & 2584/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

271 AAA of the act for the assessment year 2008-09. For assessment year 2009-10, the assessee is challenging that, penalty under section 271AAA is not automaticand only upon non-satisfaction of the conditions specified under the section penalty could have been levied. The Ld.AR submitted that, no new facts needs to be considered for adjudicating these issues