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.

228 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,148Delhi996Jaipur319Kolkata306Ahmedabad305Bangalore228Chennai212Pune159Surat137Chandigarh130Hyderabad129Amritsar129Raipur125Indore123Karnataka101Rajkot84Lucknow66Cochin52Patna44Allahabad44Nagpur43Guwahati42Visakhapatnam41Calcutta34Cuttack29Agra29Dehradun28Panaji28Jabalpur26Jodhpur14Varanasi6Ranchi5Telangana2Rajasthan2SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)73Section 25067Addition to Income56Penalty52Section 14A51Section 200A50Section 234E40Section 143(3)37Section 153C36

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Anil Kumar H., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 274Section 44A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts. The assessee has not been properly heard inspite of specific request being made to provide a personal

Showing 1–20 of 228 · Page 1 of 12

...
Disallowance34
Section 27430
Natural Justice22

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sachin S Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 2 of 12 Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 3 of 12 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed belated return of income u/s

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of AO is bad in law and against the decision of higher appellate authority. 2. Could A.O be appreciated for not considering the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as levying penalty U/s 271B of the act against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1870/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1866/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 966/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1868/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1867/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1869/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2527/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeeth Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1777/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

250/-. Proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated for this Assessment Year and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.08.20106. As there was no response / compliance by the assessee to notices issued under section 143(2) / 142 of the Act, the assessment was concluded ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were

M/S SAMANTHU BUSINESS FORMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed and the assessee’s Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 847/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazsp No.201/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 37/3, Basavanapura Main Road, Income-Tax, Bhattarahalli, Beedarahalli, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore – 560 049. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcs 9498 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

250(6) and liable to be set aside; SP No.201/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 13 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding order levying 4. penalty failing to notice that it is bad in law as it is based on notice dated 24.06.2015 which is vague, issued without application of mind and without specifying the exact conduct contumacious; The Learned

SRI. MOORSAVIRAPPA . C. BATLI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 668/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

250/- Total : Rs.2,67,186/- The Assessing Officer noted that there was no closing balance as on 31.3.2004 whereas the assessee has shown opening balances amounting to Rs.2,67,186. When the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy and the differences of the closing balance as on the last date of earlier year and opening balance of this year