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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8Chandigarh7Bangalore4Hyderabad1Indore1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A27Section 143(2)9Section 143(3)6Disallowance4Section 1442

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalties\nrelated to income\nconcealment under the\nIncome-Tax Act. It\nestablishes that a clear\nprecedent that intentional\nconcealment of income is\npunishable regardless of\nsubsequent disclosures or\nrevised returns. The court\nexclusively analysed\nPrevious precedents to\nsolidify its stance on the\ninterpretation\nand\napplicability of sections\n13(5) and 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The assessee himself\nadmitted

UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 880/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17 Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. No.42, Cstle Street Ashok Nagar Acit Vs. Bangalore 560 025 Circle-7(1)(1) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No : Aabcu2654G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, 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 Nfac Dated 12.9.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 37

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals ('CIT(A)') is void and bad in law and hence, is liable to be quashed; 2. The notices for hearing issued by the Learned

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalties\nrelated\nto\nincome\nconcealment under the\nIncome-tax\nAct. It\nestablishes\na\nclear\nprecedent that intentional\nconcealment of income is\npunishable regardless of\nsubsequent disclosures or\nrevised returns. The court\nextensively analysed\nprevious precedents to\nsolidify its stance on the\ninterpretation\nand\napplicability of sections\n139(5) and 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The assesse himself\nadmitted

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalties\nrelated\nto\nincome\nconcealment under the\nIncome-Tax Act. It\nestablishes that a clear\nprecedent that intentional\nconcealment of income is\npunishable regardless of\nsubsequent disclosures or\nrevised returns. The court\nexhaustively analysed\nPrevious precedents to\nsolidify its stance on the\ninterpretation\nand\napplicability of sections\n139(5) and 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The assessee himself\nadmitted