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.

266 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 41clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,438Mumbai1,186Ahmedabad367Jaipur289Bangalore266Hyderabad154Pune140Indore137Kolkata137Chennai134Karnataka125Raipur121Surat104Chandigarh83Rajkot61Allahabad48Amritsar45Visakhapatnam40Calcutta35Nagpur35Lucknow34Cochin21Cuttack21Agra18Kerala17Dehradun12Guwahati11Varanasi7Patna7Jodhpur6SC6Jabalpur6Ranchi4Telangana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)73Addition to Income69Section 143(3)56Section 153C52Section 14A51Penalty44Section 14840Disallowance36Section 133A

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

Showing 1–20 of 266 · Page 1 of 14

...
35
Section 27434
Section 10A31
Deduction24

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

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)

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

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)

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

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)

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

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)

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

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)

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1777/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

41,427/- on account of re-computation of capital gains by virtue of denying the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 3.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date viz., 26.03.2007 in respect

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised