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.

50 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi95Bangalore50Mumbai50Calcutta34Hyderabad31Ahmedabad31Lucknow16Jaipur16Visakhapatnam12Chandigarh11Indore10Pune9Amritsar9Allahabad8Cochin6Patna4Kolkata4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 12A85Section 271(1)(c)79Section 1144Addition to Income39Exemption26Section 69B25Section 153C24Penalty24Section 132(4)22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2856/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

Charitable Trust20
Section 153A19
Section 143(3)15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2854/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2859/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2858/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2857/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

ITA 2855/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Shivaprasad Reddy
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

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)

section 11 & 12 of the Act. Further penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 4. During the penalty proceedings the assessee made submission. 5. The ld. AO noted that assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is mainly engaged in undertaking civil contract work

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

section 269SS of the Act and consequently, the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act is not possible. 5.1 Further, coordinate bench of the Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of Aakash Education Development Trust (supra) held as under:- 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee is engaged

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

penalty more than the loan once taken and, therefore, confiscatory, has also no substance because the Legislature intended to check the transactions which are beyond the prescribed limit and they should be only through account payee cheque. If any Page 11 of 37 contravention is made, action could be taken under section 271D. The provisions of sections 269SS and 271

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

12A of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2017 and there is a delay of 547 days in filing the return of income for the impugned Assessment Year. During the course of proceedings before the lower authorities, assessee submitted the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, which is placed in Paper Book at Pages

BHARATHI EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

Accordingly the appeal of assessee stands allowed on ground

ITA 586/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 is a nullity at law in view of the decision of the Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) inasmuch as the notice does not specify clearly whether the penalty is proposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, and assuming

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 51/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

section is “may be presumed”. Let us examine as to whether the assessee has rebutted the presumption or not. On the basis of explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to these documents, we have also rendered our decision. With regard to the first and second document discussed above, we have noticed that the contents of the same