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.

183 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,180Mumbai897Jaipur334Ahmedabad329Kolkata319Bangalore183Pune177Chennai169Indore158Hyderabad152Karnataka128Raipur122Chandigarh90Rajkot78Surat64Amritsar37Calcutta34Lucknow33Nagpur32Allahabad31Visakhapatnam28Ranchi25Cochin23Guwahati21Dehradun19Agra14Patna11Cuttack7Jodhpur7SC4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Telangana3Panaji3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 143(3)54Section 153C43Section 14839Section 14737Penalty37Section 10A31Section 271(1)(c)31Disallowance

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

69 acres 38 guntas was taken as cost of acquisition whereas the assessee had sold only 16.11 acres. Therefore, the excess cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.20,50,216 has been worked out and consequently the assessee's income from capital gains was short computed to that extent. (ii) The assessee's claim for exemption under section

Showing 1–20 of 183 · Page 1 of 10

...
28
Section 133A27
Section 13226
Deduction23

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

69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed for the aforesaid Assessment Year under section 153A

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

69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed for the aforesaid Assessment Year under section 153A

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

69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed for the aforesaid Assessment Year under section 153A

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

69 of the IT Act,1961 and be taxed accordingly. Ans I accept that I had generated cash outside the books of account. However, I request you to grant me two days time to go through the records and come before you to quantify the total amount of disclosure after taking the benefit of telescoping." 4.1 During the course

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

VASANTHA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the quantum appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1180/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao(Smc)

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 69Section 71(1)

section 271(1)c ) of the Act being not applicable, the penalty levied s to be cancelled. 3 ITA No.1180 & 1181(B)/14 6. In any case and without prejudice the learned AO has erred in levying penalty at the minimum rate (300%) and the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. The penalty as levied/sustained being erroneous

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

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

271 D was not exigible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the circumstances that prompted the Appellant to receive on sale of sites cash from buyers and ought to have refrained from levying the penalty 5. On the facts the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared under the head capital gain

SHREE SHARANAVASACESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NI HALINGALI,HALINGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06/12/2018. During the course of penalty proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee had declared true and correct return, and the assessee neither concealed the income nor given any inaccurate particulars of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 and accordingly, prayed that as there was no malafide intention to conceal