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.

82 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi475Mumbai453Ahmedabad199Bangalore82Pune53Hyderabad43Jaipur41Kolkata38Rajkot29Allahabad23Karnataka21Indore21Raipur20Chandigarh12Surat12Amritsar11Dehradun11Lucknow10Guwahati7Patna6Agra5Chennai5Jodhpur5Nagpur3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam3SC2Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58Section 14A51Section 143(3)48Section 26329Transfer Pricing29Section 153C27Comparables/TP27Penalty26Section 250

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

234C of the Act. After appropriation of the payment, a net demand of Rs. 10,40,51,465/- was made, which included interest under Section 234D of the Act 2.5 While doing so, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a show cause notice. However, on account of the fact

SMT. JAYA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

24
Section 271(1)(c)23
Section 143(1)23
Natural Justice23
ITA 1264/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Singhvi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

234C of the Act. 10. Without prejudice, the AO has erred in levying interest without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271AA. Section 271BA. Section 271G and Section 271

M/S M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Singhvi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

234C of the Act. 10. Without prejudice, the AO has erred in levying interest without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271AA. Section 271BA. Section 271G and Section 271

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Singhvi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

234C of the Act. 10. Without prejudice, the AO has erred in levying interest without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271AA. Section 271BA. Section 271G and Section 271

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Singhvi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

234C of the Act. 10. Without prejudice, the AO has erred in levying interest without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271AA. Section 271BA. Section 271G and Section 271

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Singhvi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

234C of the Act. 10. Without prejudice, the AO has erred in levying interest without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271AA. Section 271BA. Section 271G and Section 271

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1049/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

M/S. ANUSHA TECHNO VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 503/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 10. For these and other grounds that may be urged

M/S. ENVIRONS MANAGEMENT (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 234C for which the appellant denies any liability.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: In the relevant assessment year, return of income was filed on 30.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.42,01,330. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) by assessing

KISHAN DUTT SHARMA,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

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

ITA 436/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

234C of the Act. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest as levied. The interest levied being erroneous are to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order / intimation of the Act be quashed or at least the addition made

M/S. INFOBELLS INFERACTIVE SOLUTIONS,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

u/s. 234A and 234C of :ne Act, as computed in the intimation u/s.143[1] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Page 3 of 14 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal

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

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 are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any or all of the grounds

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

234C is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 15. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2861/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

234C of the Act. 16. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the learned AO in levying interest under section 234D of the Act; 17. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice of each other

SRINIVAS ACHAR MOHANKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 \ 5. That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. All these grounds are directed against a single

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains