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.

40 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi306Mumbai196Ahmedabad53Jaipur53Kolkata44Bangalore40Chennai36Hyderabad36Indore32Rajkot28Pune27Visakhapatnam24Chandigarh23Raipur21Surat20Allahabad18Amritsar16Cuttack9Lucknow5Nagpur3Jodhpur2Dehradun2Ranchi1Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)44Section 14A43Section 143(3)36Section 4035Disallowance29Addition to Income29Section 20127Section 10A24Section 153A

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

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

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

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

21
Section 271(1)(c)18
Deduction15
Penalty13
ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

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

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary

MR.HASTIMAL PHOOLCHANDJI JAIN ,HUBLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(41)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

Penalty Proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated since the assessee.” 5. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the action of the AO was correct, but he expressed the view that rate of interest to be adopted as reasonable was 15%. Still not being satisfied by Page 4 of 7 the relief given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 317/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act and when such return of income is accepted by the AO, there was no case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 316/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act and when such return of income is accepted by the AO, there was no case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271

SMT JAYALAKSHMI ,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Jayalakshmi, Prop. Vijayalakshmi Granites, No.371, Industrial Area, H.N.Pura Road, Hassan. … Appellant Pan:Abgph 7269 E Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act'].

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3) and also unaccounted purchases and assessed the total income of Rs.7,69,300/- vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/12/2007. But the assessment order was set aside u/s 263 order and the AO, as per the directions of the CIT u/s 263, passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 28/12/2010. On appeal

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1023/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 15,19,670 resulting out of unaccounted sales in the crusher unit.” 13. From the above, it is noted that the unaccounted purchases were the basis for estimation of the additional income and such unaccounted purchases were arrived at based on the purchase vouchers seized during

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1021/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 15,19,670 resulting out of unaccounted sales in the crusher unit.” 13. From the above, it is noted that the unaccounted purchases were the basis for estimation of the additional income and such unaccounted purchases were arrived at based on the purchase vouchers seized during

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1024/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 15,19,670 resulting out of unaccounted sales in the crusher unit.” 13. From the above, it is noted that the unaccounted purchases were the basis for estimation of the additional income and such unaccounted purchases were arrived at based on the purchase vouchers seized during

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1022/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 15,19,670 resulting out of unaccounted sales in the crusher unit.” 13. From the above, it is noted that the unaccounted purchases were the basis for estimation of the additional income and such unaccounted purchases were arrived at based on the purchase vouchers seized during

SMT. CHANDRA MOOLCHAND JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1133/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 271Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40 A (3) should have not been revoked. 15. That the Interest u/s 234 (B) and u/s 234 (C) shall be waived off as Tax itself is not payable. 16. That penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall not be applicable as there is no concealment of Income. In the light of the above facts the Assessee prays the Honorable

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

2 are accordingly dismissed.” 4.1 Further, the finding of the CIT(A) regarding disallowance of Rs.9,915 reads as follows:- 3 M/s.R R Forgings Private Limited. “6.2 I have gone through the intimation order u/s 143(1). I have also gone through the written submission and the dtails submitted by the appellant. It is seen from a perusal of Audit

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience