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.

43 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai223Delhi218Jaipur85Chennai79Pune62Raipur47Bangalore43Allahabad39Ahmedabad34Hyderabad33Kolkata33Surat28Chandigarh23Indore16Nagpur14Amritsar10Rajkot10Lucknow7Agra6Guwahati6Panaji6Cuttack5Patna5Dehradun4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Ranchi2Cochin2

Key Topics

Section 271F91Section 133A34Section 14829Section 271(1)(c)29Section 285B27Addition to Income24Section 153A23Section 25021Section 69B

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

20
Penalty20
Survey u/s 133A20
Disallowance18

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

u/s 234E for belatedly filing the TDS return. The Act has been amended from 01/06/2015 and prior to this period, levy of fee was in the statute book, therefore, the assessee is not ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 11 of 17 liable for the period till 01/06/2015 and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 271/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 266/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/BANG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 285BSection 51

200 2012-13 2,03,900 2013-14 1,67,500 2014-15 1,27,700 ITA Nos.263 to 271/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 11 4. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Assessee had filed a common written submissions for the Assessment Years

JAYAPPA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

200/- as tax with respect to the gain accrued to the assessee in respect of the sale of TDR. 5-A. Thereafter, on 31.3.2021 proceedings u/s 148 of the Act have been initiated against the assessee asking the assessee to file the return of income. The assessee in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act electronically filed

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1162/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

200% of the tax payable for under reporting of income and the same was computed as per sec.270A(10) and imposed a penalty of Rs.3,71,870/- and passed order on 07/01/2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the AO by observing

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves to leave or add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee also raised additional grounds of appeal vide

VEETIL KIZHAKKE NIRMAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(6), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192BSection 270A

200 respectively. 4. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee made detailed written submissions against the penalty to which the CIT(Appeals) has considered in his order and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. The ld. AR reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that