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.

209 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 43(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,324Mumbai1,058Ahmedabad375Jaipur273Bangalore209Pune138Kolkata129Hyderabad128Karnataka126Raipur121Indore117Chandigarh91Chennai88Visakhapatnam59Rajkot53Surat51Amritsar46Nagpur43Calcutta35Cochin32Allahabad30Lucknow18Dehradun18Guwahati17Kerala14Cuttack14Agra12Ranchi10Jabalpur9Varanasi7Panaji6SC6Jodhpur6Patna4Rajasthan3Telangana2

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 143(3)54Disallowance40Section 14836Transfer Pricing32Section 10A31Section 153C31Deduction27Section 271(1)(c)

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

Showing 1–20 of 209 · Page 1 of 11

...
26
Penalty26
Section 133A25
Section 92C24

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

SRI RAMAIAH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 977/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri C Ramaiah Reddy, Ramaiah Reddy Colony, Sector ‘C’, Basavanagar, Marthahalli, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Parbat, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 171(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

43,772/- as against revised declared income of Rs.23,97,25,547/- due to various additions made therein, In the order of assessment the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) observed that the assessee had only declared the sum of Rs.50 lakhs on account of unexplained jewellery as per the declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act in the return of income filed

M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 3187/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2009-10 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Unit 1, Plot No.78, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Bangalore-560 100. Circle 7(1)(1), Pan : Aaact 4660 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

43,180/- and wherein the AO simultaneously initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issue of notice dated 09.04.2013. Subsequently, the AO passed an order dated 30.10.2013 levying penalty of Rs.1,11,79,217/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was upheld by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated

KASIMALI M SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

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

ITA 1950/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Chandrasekhar , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

43,000 2.1 Further, during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee has also offered additional income of Rs.16,04,803. It was noticed that the assessee has entered into two joint development agreements to develop land. The receipts from the same were not disclosed to the Department. On account of this a sum of Rs.16,04,803 was offered

SIMRAN K SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 1949/BANG/2017[21012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 Ms. Simran. K. Sayyed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhisma Tank, Ward - 1, Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. Pan : Bwgps 4895 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Mrinalini, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019

For Appellant: Ms. Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

43,000/- each. Proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in this regard for Assessment Year 2012-13 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.08.2013, in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 13.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs.36,25,110/-. The order of assessment was accordingly completed u/s

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1595/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1596/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1590/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1594/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1591/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1593/BANG/2019[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1592/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

6. Accordingly penalty was imposed for the various assessment years as follows:- AY Amount (Rs.) 2009-10 23,50,000 2010-11 27,00,000 2011-12 45,00,000 2012-13 90,95,000 2013-14 43,50,000 2014-15 50,00,000 2015-16 22,45,000 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of AO imposing penalty

SRI P A USMAN ,SULLIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 888/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.888 & 889(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) Shri P.A.Usman, D No.2-106-2, Chennavara House, Peruvaje Post, Bellare, Sullia-574 212 Pan No. Aappu4406R Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi, Jcit

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

6. Now we shall take up appeal in ITA No.889/B/2019, where the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and validity of the notice. The AO subsequent to passing the assessment order dated 13-12-2016 issued show cause notice for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. The AO considering

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MANIPAL HOSPITALS (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

6 M/s. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act or not. 12. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as per Paragraph Nos. 4.3 to 4.4 as under: - “4.3 The above grounds and the submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. On perusal of the details available on records

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

43,100/-, out of which Rs.20 lakhs was received in cash. The assessee owns 50% share in the said property and accordingly the assessee had received his share of sale consideration amounting to Rs.42,71,550/- only, which is inclusive of cash consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. The buyers had also deducted tax at source @1% on the assessee