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.

280 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,513Mumbai1,213Kolkata514Jaipur353Bangalore280Pune274Ahmedabad245Chennai180Surat178Indore177Hyderabad138Karnataka112Amritsar83Chandigarh82Ranchi74Cuttack67Rajkot64Raipur64Cochin60Visakhapatnam58Allahabad56Lucknow29Guwahati25Patna24Nagpur24Dehradun24Agra24Kerala14Jodhpur14Panaji6Jabalpur4Telangana3Varanasi3SC2Rajasthan2Calcutta2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)132Section 274123Section 14861Penalty57Section 143(3)46Section 27143Addition to Income40Section 133A39Section 10A33

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a notice u/s 274 of the Act on 27.12.2017 and finally after hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied penalty at Rs.1,10,08,720/- by invoking the provisions of explanation (5A) to section

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Showing 1–20 of 280 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 271(1)22
Disallowance18
Deduction15

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that sending printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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

u/s. 274 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars/concealment of rate particulars/concealment of income.” 4. Thereafter the notice under Section 271 r.w.s. 274 of the notice under Section 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued Act was issued on 28.12.2016 as below: - below: 3 Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed a Penalty

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3324/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) initiated separately". The notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3325/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) initiated separately". The notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued

SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 1172/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

sections in all the years. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the penalties so levied. 4. We shall now take up the appeals pertaining to AY 2008-09 to 2012-13, wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. It is pertinent to note that the assessing officer in the assessment order as well as in ITA Nos.1172

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1272/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1269/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1270/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1268/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1271/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which

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

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Act was initiated by issuance of notice dated 23.3.2022. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the firm could not submit the audited financial statement, audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and also the return of income in time because of the fact that main partner who looks after the business