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.

237 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,148Mumbai1,019Ahmedabad333Jaipur251Bangalore237Indore152Pune134Raipur132Karnataka127Chennai112Kolkata106Hyderabad87Chandigarh78Rajkot50Surat46Visakhapatnam45Nagpur39Calcutta35Amritsar32Lucknow28Allahabad26Cochin26Patna20Agra18Kerala14Guwahati13Ranchi11Dehradun9Panaji8Cuttack7Jabalpur6Telangana4SC4Jodhpur2Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 14A51Section 143(3)39Section 153C36Disallowance34Section 14829Section 20127Transfer Pricing27Section 133A

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) also highlighted that in Abbey’s case, the Assessee had furnished an application under section 195 while IBM has not exercised this option. (Page 21-22 of the CIT(A) order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) also highlighted that in Abbey’s case, the Assessee had furnished an application under section 195 while IBM has not exercised this option. (Page 21-22 of the CIT(A) order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section

Showing 1–20 of 237 · Page 1 of 12

...
25
Penalty25
Deduction24
Section 271(1)(c)19

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) also highlighted that in Abbey’s case, the Assessee had furnished an application under section 195 while IBM has not exercised this option. (Page 21-22 of the CIT(A) order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) also highlighted that in Abbey’s case, the Assessee had furnished an application under section 195 while IBM has not exercised this option. (Page 21-22 of the CIT(A) order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1506/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1505/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1507/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1504/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 542/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47,05,230, which inter alia included long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 271B

47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded Actual delay in days 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

47,05,230, which inter alia included long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 546/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 489/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 492/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 495/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 543/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

2 3 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1518/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 94

47,660 and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15 [‘Ld.CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the said order. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, and any additions/ disallowances made

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

ITA 541/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

penalty was to be levied on the tax assessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed minus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble Supreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271