BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai107Jaipur60Ahmedabad40Raipur36Chennai36Pune29Allahabad20Kolkata14Rajkot14Nagpur14Chandigarh14Visakhapatnam13Panaji13Bangalore12Lucknow10Indore8Hyderabad6Jabalpur5Surat4Ranchi3Dehradun2SC2Cochin1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14826Section 133A25Section 40A(3)24Section 13119Section 143(3)14Section 153A13Addition to Income10Section 1327Section 147

SHRI. VARADARAJAN NARAYAN AIYAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 91/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.P.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

160 and received Rs.2,12,07,936 from the purchaser after deduction of TDS at 1% as per the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act. Out of the consideration received of Rs.2,12,07,936, Rs.2 crore was received by way of RTGS and balance Rs.12,07,936 was accepted in cash. Taking note of this cash transaction

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

6
Bogus Purchases6
Reopening of Assessment5
Survey u/s 133A5

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1024/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1021/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1022/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1023/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. SAUDI TELECOM COMPANY, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2399/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Mr. Aliasgar Rampurwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee, a non-resident company, incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi IT(IT)A Nos.2389&2399/Bang/2024 Saudi Telekom Company, Riyadh Page 2 of 4 Arabia (KSA), is a telecommunication carrier operating as a provider

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133A- of the Act states as under: - (3) An income tax authority acting under this section may: — (i) & (ii)** (iii) record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act therefore empowers income-tax authority to record statement of a person including

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

271)(SC), wherein it was held that “there was no material on which the ITO could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There were many surmise and conjectures and if the conclusion is the result of suspicion, which cannot take place of proof in this matter.” 5.20. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement