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.

60 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai171Delhi161Bangalore60Raipur42Ahmedabad39Kolkata22Jaipur22Pune20Indore15Visakhapatnam13Hyderabad10Nagpur7Surat7Chennai7Chandigarh7Lucknow5Panaji3Jodhpur1Dehradun1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 139(1)113Section 43B104Section 143(1)80Section 36(1)(va)66Disallowance52Deduction42Addition to Income40Section 3628Section 10A24

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

section 43B(f) of the Act was upheld. Thus, the contention of the assessee that it is a debatable issue is not acceptable. He further supported the reasons given by the AO for levy of penalty and accordingly the penalty levied of Rs.25,29,788 was confirmed. The assessee who aggrieved with that order is in appeal before

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

Section 143(3)22
Section 80I11
Transfer Pricing6

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 (SC). 7. I have heard

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Elamurugu G., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

43B Page 4 of 7 7 Disallowance of Deduction claimed under 2,71,454/- the head CBF 8 Disallowance of excess claim of 37,487/- depreciation 9 Disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect 2,19,231/- of Guest House 10 Disallowance of expenditure U/s 40(a)(ia) of the 6,50,565/- IT Act in respect of lab testing charges

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)

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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)

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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)

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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)

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that

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. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka

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. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee is entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI having regard to the provisions of section 43B of the I.T.Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4 M/s.Environs Management (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that

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. 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

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

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. 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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed even in the case of assessment where the income is determined at loss. Learned AR strongly relied on the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that