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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai244Delhi215Ahmedabad95Hyderabad32Rajkot29Bangalore28Jaipur27Allahabad23Pune23Raipur20Kolkata15Chandigarh12Indore10Amritsar10Surat7Patna6Jodhpur5Visakhapatnam3Nagpur3Agra3Chennai2Jabalpur1Dehradun1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 153C32Addition to Income24Section 143(3)18Penalty14Natural Justice13Section 6911Section 1329Section 234A8Section 68

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

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

8
Undisclosed Income8
Section 271(1)(c)7
Unexplained Investment7

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

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 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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 ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

234C of the Act. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified in law. 10.Appellant craves leave to add, amend, substitute, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a company engaged

SOMASHEKHAR VIRUPAX UMARAMI L/H SMT. LATHARANI . S UMARANI ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HUBLI

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

ITA 867/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Somashekhar Virupax Umarani L/H Smt. Latharani S. Umarani Umarani Annexe Behind Hosur Jain Temple, Ito Vs. Near Chetana Weigh Bridge Ncm Ward-2(4) Hubballi 580 029 Hubli Karnataka Pan No : Aadpu0417E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Cit(A) Dated 31.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 271ASection 68Section 69ASection 69B

section 68 and 69A r.w.s 115BBE in a summary manner without establishing that such addition is unexplained one. To that extent addition made of Rs. 2,48,85,095 is illegal. 6. That there is no justification to demand total tax of Rs. 1,41,60,313/- including interest u/s 234B and 234C 7. That there is no justification

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

234C of the Act. Page 6 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 9.2 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the decision of the AO in simultaneously levying interest under section 234B and section 220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

234C of the Act. Page 6 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 9.2 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the decision of the AO in simultaneously levying interest under section 234B and section 220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

ITA 1256/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 246ASection 271Section 274Section 68

penalty proceedings by issue of notice\nunder section 274 read with section 271 and such other provisions of the\nAct:\n(Total tax effect: Rs. 25,25,867/-)\n3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. filed a paper book by\nenclosing synopsis as well as the various hearing notices issued by\nthe ld. CIT(A) and also copy

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

234C of the Act. 20. The learned AO has erred, and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section .271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Page 5 of 40 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds

M/S. SAMAJA SEVA MANDALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3WARD-, BANGALORE

ITA 33/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Shreeshkumar Eshwar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Yamuna C., D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the addition made in this assessment year. ITA No.33 & 45/Bang/2024 M/s. Samaja Seva Mandali, Bangalore Page 2 of 13 2. First, we will deal with ITA No.33/Bang/2024 of the assessee’s appeal with regard to quantum additions. The grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

234C of the Act and initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are either consequential or premature. Hence we dismiss the same as infructuous. 33. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to Revenue’s appeal in IT(TPA)A NO. 253/Bang/2016 34. The issue

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE INDIA EXPORT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 253/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

234C of the Act and initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are either consequential or premature. Hence we dismiss the same as infructuous. 33. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to Revenue’s appeal in IT(TPA)A NO. 253/Bang/2016 34. The issue

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 956/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest so levied, being erroneous, is required to be deleted. 5.2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

234C of the Act. 11. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above

M/S. PRAKRUTI PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, UDUPI

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

ITA 475/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Nischal B., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd., Karwar Page 4 of 7 Other grounds: 5. 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest so levied, being erroneous, is required to be deleted. 5.2. The Appellant craves leave