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.

49 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 12A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi95Mumbai51Bangalore49Hyderabad35Calcutta34Ahmedabad30Lucknow16Jaipur16Visakhapatnam12Chandigarh11Indore9Pune9Amritsar9Allahabad8Cochin6Kolkata5Patna4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Nagpur2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)79Section 12A67Section 1144Addition to Income40Section 153C30Exemption26Section 69B25Penalty25Section 132(4)

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 49 · Page 1 of 3

22
Charitable Trust20
Section 153A19
Section 143(3)15

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 , 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 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

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 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

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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)

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] on ITA Nos.739 to 747/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 11 10.1.2025 by identically worded order. The facts in all these cases are similar and therefore

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

2, Bangalore in ITA No. 737/Bang/2021 the assessment year 2016-17, wherein, at Para No. 36 of the said judgement held that "the term "any other person" in the context of section 269SS appears to mean persons who are not very closely and independently connected with the assessee. In the present case, the assessee accepted loan from its managing trustee

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

12A of the Act. It manages medical college and hostel in addition to school and college. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 7.12.2018 for AY 2016-17. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the Chartered Accountant in sI.(h) of Form l0B has reported as under:- "An amount

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

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