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.

41 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 12A(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi78Mumbai43Bangalore41Calcutta34Hyderabad31Ahmedabad27Lucknow16Jaipur15Visakhapatnam11Pune8Indore8Chandigarh8Allahabad5Patna4Kolkata3Jodhpur2Cochin2Amritsar2Raipur1Rajkot1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A67Section 271(1)(c)34Addition to Income30Section 69B25Section 153C24Section 132(4)22Section 153A19Section 1117Exemption

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

17
Penalty15
Limitation/Time-bar14
Section 25013

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

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

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment orders

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

1 it was never an intention of the legislator to punish the party involved in genuine transactions, if there was reasonable cause u/s 73B the penalty u/s 271D of the Act cannot be levied. 2.19 In the Assessee Company case also, the Directors of the company have advanced loan to the company on various dates and have maintained a running

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

ITA 142/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

ITA 141/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment. M/s. Amala Jyothi

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment. M/s. Amala Jyothi

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

12A of the Act vide order dated 22-2-2016. Against the order of Ld, CIT(Ex) assessee preferred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose." 9.40 He also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

12A of the Act vide order dated 22-2-2016. Against the order of Ld, CIT(Ex) assessee preferred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose." 9.40 He also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported