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.

57 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai296Delhi247Karnataka107Ahmedabad101Surat71Kolkata68Jaipur67Indore65Bangalore57Pune49Chennai47Ranchi35Chandigarh33Hyderabad30Raipur30Cochin22Nagpur20Panaji10Lucknow9Cuttack8Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Patna7Amritsar6Rajkot5Agra4Rajasthan2Allahabad2Telangana2Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)46Penalty35Section 14733Addition to Income32Section 27123Section 27421Disallowance20Section 14A19Section 271(1)(b)

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 143(3)17
Section 2016
Condonation of Delay8

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

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

SRI.K.VIJAY ARYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1799/BANG/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

3. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that mere non-striking a particular column in the notice would not be that much fatal to the validity of penalty proceedings. 4. Having carefully examined the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that notice was issued on a printed proforma in which

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 699/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of\nthe Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of\nthe appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal\nwithin the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.”\nITA No.701/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal):\n5.4 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 701/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

section 249 (3) of\nthe Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of\nthe appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal\nwithin the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.”\nITA No.701/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal):\n5.4 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2009) 23VST 249 (SC)] as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

3. In brief, the facts of this case are that assessment order was passed by the AO vide order dt. 07.12.2018. During assessment proceedings the AO noted that there was violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. So he referred the matter to the Addl. CIT on 20.03.2019. Accordingly, a penalty notice under Section 271D

SRI. S.D. RADDI,DHARWAD vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A. Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

3. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that mere non-striking a particular column in the notice would not be that much fatal to the validity of penalty proceedings. 4. Having carefully examined the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that notice was issued on a printed proforma in which

KANAKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Lakshmi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271Section 271ESection 275Section 275(1)(c)

271-E of the Act shall be imposed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The AO vide letter dated 9.8.2016 intimated the JCIT, range 3(2), Bangalore (JCIT) regarding the default u/s.269-T. The JCIT issued a show cause notice u/s.271-E of the Act before imposing penalty dated 10.8.2016. The JCIT finally by order dated 27.1.2017 imposed penalty

M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.2009 which is appearing along with the application for admission of additional ground in ITA No.1812/Bang/2013 and at pages 23 ITA No.1812 & 1844/Bang/2013 Page 3 of 8 & 24 of the compilation filed in ITA No.1844/Bang/2013 with the submission that the Assessing Officer did not specifically mention in the notice

SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1812/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.2009 which is appearing along with the application for admission of additional ground in ITA No.1812/Bang/2013 and at pages 23 ITA No.1812 & 1844/Bang/2013 Page 3 of 8 & 24 of the compilation filed in ITA No.1844/Bang/2013 with the submission that the Assessing Officer did not specifically mention in the notice

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the variousITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

ITA 1809/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2015AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri G.S. PrashanthFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 249

Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal by way of a combined order dt.25.10.2013; since the learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had not established that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals for these two assessment years in time. In paras

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts