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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62Delhi53Ahmedabad23Chennai20Jaipur20Indore12Pune11Bangalore10Surat7Patna6Kolkata6Agra5Raipur5Lucknow4Amritsar4Chandigarh4Visakhapatnam3Hyderabad3Nagpur2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 54F11Section 271(1)(c)11Penalty7Section 2745Addition to Income5Condonation of Delay5Deduction4Exemption4Section 2503

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)

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 of the aforesaid addition. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter, the AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.1

Section 1443
Section 271(1)(b)3
Capital Gains3

Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

54F of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of AO, hence this appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

section 54F of Income tax act. Also, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is being

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

section 54F of Income tax act. Also, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is being

SMT. JAYA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1264/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

54F of the Act amounting to Rs.33,93,175/-when the appellant has furnished the necessary property documents and building plans during the time of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,13,760/-, when the appellant had already declared interest amount

SRI. KARUR JAYAPRAKASH,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

ITA 101/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepika, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act. 9. Relief The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2739/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2740/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

ITA 2741/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Smarak Swain, JCIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and we deem it appropriate to dispose them off by way this combined order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 2739 to 2741/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 9 Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal 2. Admittedly, there

SMT. SHOBHA LAKSHMAN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274Section 54F

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14. 2 Smt. Shobha Lakshman 2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration on 31.3.2014 declared its total income as Rs.2,66,000/-. The case of the Assessee