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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi212Mumbai131Jaipur60Ahmedabad56Kolkata26Hyderabad26Allahabad19Pune18Amritsar13Indore12Chandigarh12Chennai12Rajkot11Lucknow11Bangalore9Agra9Raipur7Guwahati5Dehradun5Surat5Cochin4Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Patna1SC1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 6812Addition to Income9Section 115W6Section 1445Deduction5Disallowance5Section 1484Section 142(1)4Section 80J

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1411/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 115W

penalty under section 271. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the CIT(A) in disposing of the appeals filed before him/her. Thus, it is clear, that where the CIT(A) had called for details on such direction and the assessee files such details on such direction, it is not incumbent upon the CIT(A) to call

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

4
Section 92C4
Section 404
Cash Deposit2
ITA 1448/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 115W

penalty under section 271. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the CIT(A) in disposing of the appeals filed before him/her. Thus, it is clear, that where the CIT(A) had called for details on such direction and the assessee files such details on such direction, it is not incumbent upon the CIT(A) to call

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2100/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sathvik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271FSection 54

section (3) of rule 46A of Income tax rules” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife and not filed her return of income. Based on the information through the INSIGHT PORTAL, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, seeking the details about the financial transactions undertaken by her. Before that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS & IMPORTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

penalty under section 271.]" 16. The Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 184 DLT 611 (Delhi) held as under: '…Rule 46A is a provision in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which is invoked, on the other hand, by the assessee who is in an appeal before the CIT (A). Once the assessee

M/S. K.N.R ROFFING PVT LTD.,,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, TUMKUR

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

ITA 3125/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Membe Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C., CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

penalty under section 271.] 13. Though the assessee did not file ledger accounts to prove the quantum of opening balance appearing in the various creditors account, the same ought to have been looked into by the CIT(Appeals), in exercise of powers under Rule 46A(4) of the Rules. It is always open to the Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. HARIS MUHAMMAD SAIT, BENGALURU

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2580/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate
Section 144Section 68

penalty under section 271.] 15. On perusal of the order of the ld CIT (A), we do not find that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee were forwarded to the ld. AO for his comment. According to the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, the CIT(A) is authorised to admit the additional evidence in specified circumstances

SRI. SHANKAR SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT ,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS , GULBARGA

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sneha Sahai, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

u/s 148A(d) of “the Act” was passed on 30.03.2022. Sufficient opportunity was granted as detailed in para no. 2 of the assessment order. Subsequently, the assessee has filed return of income on 4.11.2022 as per provisions of section 148 of "the Act" declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Since the assessee has not complied the notice under section

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source as per the following details:- (i) In respect of payment of Rs.2,37,95,808 being payment made to Aircent Technologies no evidence of TDS was filed.\ (ii) In respect of payment made to Karnataka Micro Electronic, Sankulp Semi Conductor, Tata Elxsi and Poseidon design

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source as per the following details:- (i) In respect of payment of Rs.2,37,95,808 being payment made to Aircent Technologies no evidence of TDS was filed.\ (ii) In respect of payment made to Karnataka Micro Electronic, Sankulp Semi Conductor, Tata Elxsi and Poseidon design