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.

200 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,457Mumbai1,322Ahmedabad429Jaipur340Kolkata212Bangalore200Chennai161Hyderabad158Pune154Indore153Surat144Raipur129Karnataka125Chandigarh114Rajkot82Visakhapatnam47Amritsar41Lucknow38Calcutta37Nagpur34Allahabad33Guwahati32Cochin27Agra23Cuttack21Dehradun14Patna14Jabalpur14Ranchi9Jodhpur9SC5Telangana3Varanasi3Rajasthan2Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 14A69Section 143(3)61Section 14840Section 153C40Disallowance37Penalty37Section 271(1)(c)33Section 10A

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) the Appellant was subjected to the proceedings in the show cause notice, when there are 6 Explanations are provided u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Ld. AO erred in the penalty order by ignoring the jurisprudence laid by various Courts and CBDT Circulars. 12. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

Showing 1–20 of 200 · Page 1 of 10

...
30
Section 133A30
Section 6828
Deduction23

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s 274 read with section 271( penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73 taxmann.com CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73 taxmann.com

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

ITA 859/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2015AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 80C

68,14,038. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously on all the above four disallowances made in the order of assessment (supra). The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying the minimum penalty on all the above four disallowances amounting to Rs.1

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

ITA 1604/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Appeal Are As Under: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

68,066/- in view of the following additions / deductions:- (i) Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) – Rs.14,34,982/- (ii) Disallowance of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-. 2.2 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 in respect

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 873/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 143(3) of the Act passed by the learned AO who has made additions only on the basis of assumptions, surmise and conjectures.” Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 7 of 10 8.1 The crux of above grounds is that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The facts of the issue are that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1702/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1700/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1701/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

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

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

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 121/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 120/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

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

68,540/- vehicle and furniture 5 Variation in sundry creditors 16,94,901/- 6 Disallowance of excess deductions claimed 54,06,759/- under the head departmental deduction U/s 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

SMT JAYALAKSHMI ,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Jayalakshmi, Prop. Vijayalakshmi Granites, No.371, Industrial Area, H.N.Pura Road, Hassan. … Appellant Pan:Abgph 7269 E Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act'].

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

68,468/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the addition made towards unexplained purchases of Rs. 3,10,420/- sustained by the Hon'ble CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A} failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lumkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 274Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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)

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

SRI SURESH CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 156/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

68,61,132/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the additions made in course of the assessment proceedings that were accepted by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there was no concealment of income or furnishing