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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62Ahmedabad61Delhi38Bangalore38Jaipur31Indore18Raipur10Chandigarh6Pune6Kolkata6Lucknow4Rajkot4Surat3Hyderabad3Amritsar3Jodhpur1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 139(1)113Section 43B102Section 143(1)80Section 36(1)(va)66Deduction36Disallowance36Section 3628Addition to Income22Section 143(1)(a)11

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

va] to sub-section [1] of section 36 of the Act, will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. In contradistinction the relevant Finance Act, 2003 amending section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4 did not speak of application and merely provided that the amendments will take

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

Section 1439
Section 234A7
Natural Justice2

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. 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

va] to sub-section [1] of section 36 of the Act, will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. In contradistinction the relevant Finance Act, 2003 amending section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4 did not speak of application and merely provided that the amendments will take

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

va] to sub-section [1] of section 36 of the Act, will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. In contradistinction the relevant Finance Act, 2003 amending section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4 did not speak of application and merely provided that the amendments will take

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

va] to sub-section [1] of section 36 of the Act, will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. In contradistinction the relevant Finance Act, 2003 amending section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4 did not speak of application and merely provided that the amendments will take

MR. YERUVA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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

MR. YERUVA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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

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

G R CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, 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

G R CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, 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. 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

KISHAN DUTT SHARMA,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

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

ITA 436/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 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

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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. 7 M/s.Karle Infrastructure Private Limited Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act is clarificatory

M/S. ESKAY HEAT TRANSFERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 534/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sri.Prashanth C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 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.” 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. 6 M/s.Eskay Heat Transfers Private Limited. Ltd., (supra) to content that the amendment to section 36(1)(va

CHANNA KESHAVA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 6 Sri Channa Keshava. 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

M/S. VIROKA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 507/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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. INFOBELLS INFERACTIVE SOLUTIONS,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 411/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Infobells Interactive Solutions, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.12, 2Nd Floor, 8Th V Block, Circle – 4(3)(1), K R Nanjappa Layout, Vs. Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aacfi 7614 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 43B

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 7. The learned DR 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 hold that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is clarificatory. The judgment

TECHNOCON CONSTRUCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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

SRI. P ANAND VARDHAN REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 663/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43E

u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly.” 7 Sri.P.Anand Vardhan Reddy. 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

MANGILAL PADAMCHAND,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
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.” 6 Sri Mangilal Padamchand. 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