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.

65 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi371Mumbai202Karnataka120Bangalore65Ahmedabad62Jaipur59Pune28Chandigarh26Kolkata24Chennai23Hyderabad19Nagpur15Cochin11Indore10Lucknow9Cuttack8Agra7Dehradun7Guwahati6Rajkot5Surat5Telangana2Raipur2Rajasthan1Allahabad1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 200A53Section 234E45Addition to Income41Section 14838Section 153C36Section 143(3)33Section 133A25Section 14723Section 36(1)(iii)

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 249Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c), and u/s 271(1)(b) and 271E of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 Page 2 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to Law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

21
Disallowance19
Penalty19
Deduction15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

U/s 270A of the Act. In the opinion of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the AO has failed to establish that any mens rea was involved & the assessee willfully misrepresented or suppressed the facts. 9.4 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A of the Act herein below: 270A. Penalty

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

234(E) for delay in filing the TDS return. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is required to file statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200 of the Act in Form No. 24Q/26Q. The assessee deduced tax and filed TDS return in the prescribed form belatedly. Therefore, while processing TDS return

RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

271(1)(c) 15.09.2015 2013-14 Asst. order 144 29.03.2016 3.4 It is submitted by the ld AR that even in the letter dt. 24.05.2018, the Assessing Officer has not provided the certified copy of impugned penalty order u/s 271D of the Act. Only a photocopy of the penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was given to the assessee

SRI ANANDA ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2263/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

SMT LEELAVATHI ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2259/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

SRI ANANDA ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2262/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

SMT LEELAVATHI ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2260/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

SRI ANANDA ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2261/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

SMT LEELAVATHI ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2258/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

271[1][c] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

234(E) of the Act for the asst. year 2013-14 & 2014-15. The details of the orders passed by the AO for the above asst. years are as given below:- ITA No.82-90/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 12 Asst. Year Fin. Year TDS Form Quarter Late

SRI. H.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

234 A and B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the order of assessment on the facts and circumstance of the case. 15. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal

SRI. M.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

234 A and B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the order of assessment on the facts and circumstance of the case. 15. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2741/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2739/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2740/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1220/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 143Section 92CSection 92C(3)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15 Directions issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts in not a) taking cognizance of the objections filed by the Appellant in IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 7 relation to the draft assessment order/TP Order issued

M/S. SUMATHI NURSING & MATERNITY HOME,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 434/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 43B

234 B of the Income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2838/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT(TP-2-DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 2Section 234

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your assessee humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the assessee may be awarded

SRI PANCHAMAL GANESH SHENOY (HUF) ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri R.N.Siddapaji, Addl.CIT
Section 264Section 271(1)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs.7,10,000/-. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the notice dated 23/3/2015 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of The Income tax Act was bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by stating that the Appeal filed