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.

263 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 36(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,144Mumbai1,048Jaipur299Ahmedabad287Bangalore263Indore130Pune129Karnataka126Hyderabad113Kolkata110Chandigarh105Chennai99Rajkot63Raipur61Allahabad44Lucknow39Visakhapatnam36Calcutta35Amritsar32Surat27Nagpur27Cochin25Dehradun15Kerala14Agra13Cuttack10SC8Patna7Jabalpur6Guwahati6Ranchi5Telangana4Varanasi3Jodhpur3Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 143(3)54Section 43B54Section 139(1)53Section 143(1)51Disallowance46Deduction37Section 153C34Section 36(1)(va)

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)

u/s. 153A submitted by the assessee. In this order, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) due to the assessee's failure of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7.2 During the penalty proceedings, the AO concluded that the - case of the assessee fell under explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, meeting all the necessary

Showing 1–20 of 263 · Page 1 of 14

...
34
Section 10A31
Transfer Pricing29
Section 133A27

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

III, Bangalore by order dt.31.8.2012 wherein the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 54B of the Act to the extent of Rs.6,70,40,704. Therefore, the original stand of the Assessing Officer had got restored. In other words, the disallowance of exemption under section 54B of the Act to the extent

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 339/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 334/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 333/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 337/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 336/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

SRI.RATAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 335/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 338/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S. SUMATHI NURSING & MATERNITY HOME,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

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

ITA 434/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Pranav KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 7.1 The CIT(A) had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S. ANUSHA TECHNO VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 503/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 9.1 The learned Standing Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S. P.R. FORGINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 421/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 7.1 The learned Standing Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S. ENVIRONS MANAGEMENT (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 420/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 8.1 The learned Standing Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S. SYNERGICS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 506/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 8.1 The learned Standing Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S SYNERGICS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 505/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 8.1 The learned Standing Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

MR. G R CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 7.1 The CIT(A) had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

M/S SYNDICATE BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 732/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazin Ita Nos. A.Y. Appellant(S) Vs. Respondent 709/Bang/2019 2012-13 Syndicate Bank, 2011-12 Rajajinagar Main Branch, Ramamandir Road, 3Rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. Tan : Blrs 00880 F Pan: Aaccs 4699E 710/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 735/Bang/2019 2013-14 Jayanagar Market Complex Branch, The Assistant 12Th Main Road, Commissioner Of 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Income Tax (Tds), Bangalore-560 011. Tan : Blrs 16148 G Range 3, Pan: Aaccs 4699E Bangalore. 711/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 2013-14 Bit Branch, K.R. Road,V V Puram, Bangalore-560 004. Tan : Blrs 16186 C Pan: Aaccs 4699E 712/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, Vijaya College Br., R V Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. Tan : Blrs 15334 E Pan: Aaccs 4699E

36 appeals by different branches of Syndicate Bank, a nationalised bank, carrying on banking business against different orders of respective CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru, relating to different Assessment years as set out in the cause title. The issue involved in all the appeals are common and deal with the only issue of validity of imposition of penalty on the Assessee u/s.271-C

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,GANDHINAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1601/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazin Ita Nos. A.Y. Appellant(S) Vs. Respondent 709/Bang/2019 2012-13 Syndicate Bank, 2011-12 Rajajinagar Main Branch, Ramamandir Road, 3Rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. Tan : Blrs 00880 F Pan: Aaccs 4699E 710/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 735/Bang/2019 2013-14 Jayanagar Market Complex Branch, The Assistant 12Th Main Road, Commissioner Of 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Income Tax (Tds), Bangalore-560 011. Tan : Blrs 16148 G Range 3, Pan: Aaccs 4699E Bangalore. 711/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 2013-14 Bit Branch, K.R. Road,V V Puram, Bangalore-560 004. Tan : Blrs 16186 C Pan: Aaccs 4699E 712/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, Vijaya College Br., R V Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. Tan : Blrs 15334 E Pan: Aaccs 4699E

36 appeals by different branches of Syndicate Bank, a nationalised bank, carrying on banking business against different orders of respective CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru, relating to different Assessment years as set out in the cause title. The issue involved in all the appeals are common and deal with the only issue of validity of imposition of penalty on the Assessee u/s.271-C

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 709/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazin Ita Nos. A.Y. Appellant(S) Vs. Respondent 709/Bang/2019 2012-13 Syndicate Bank, 2011-12 Rajajinagar Main Branch, Ramamandir Road, 3Rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. Tan : Blrs 00880 F Pan: Aaccs 4699E 710/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 735/Bang/2019 2013-14 Jayanagar Market Complex Branch, The Assistant 12Th Main Road, Commissioner Of 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Income Tax (Tds), Bangalore-560 011. Tan : Blrs 16148 G Range 3, Pan: Aaccs 4699E Bangalore. 711/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 2013-14 Bit Branch, K.R. Road,V V Puram, Bangalore-560 004. Tan : Blrs 16186 C Pan: Aaccs 4699E 712/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, Vijaya College Br., R V Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. Tan : Blrs 15334 E Pan: Aaccs 4699E

36 appeals by different branches of Syndicate Bank, a nationalised bank, carrying on banking business against different orders of respective CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru, relating to different Assessment years as set out in the cause title. The issue involved in all the appeals are common and deal with the only issue of validity of imposition of penalty on the Assessee u/s.271-C

M/S SYNDICATE BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 724/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazin Ita Nos. A.Y. Appellant(S) Vs. Respondent 709/Bang/2019 2012-13 Syndicate Bank, 2011-12 Rajajinagar Main Branch, Ramamandir Road, 3Rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. Tan : Blrs 00880 F Pan: Aaccs 4699E 710/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 735/Bang/2019 2013-14 Jayanagar Market Complex Branch, The Assistant 12Th Main Road, Commissioner Of 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Income Tax (Tds), Bangalore-560 011. Tan : Blrs 16148 G Range 3, Pan: Aaccs 4699E Bangalore. 711/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, 2013-14 Bit Branch, K.R. Road,V V Puram, Bangalore-560 004. Tan : Blrs 16186 C Pan: Aaccs 4699E 712/Bang/2019 2011-12 Syndicate Bank, Vijaya College Br., R V Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. Tan : Blrs 15334 E Pan: Aaccs 4699E

36 appeals by different branches of Syndicate Bank, a nationalised bank, carrying on banking business against different orders of respective CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru, relating to different Assessment years as set out in the cause title. The issue involved in all the appeals are common and deal with the only issue of validity of imposition of penalty on the Assessee u/s.271-C