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.

33 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai245Delhi197Jaipur141Ahmedabad110Pune57Indore50Hyderabad48Rajkot48Surat45Chandigarh39Bangalore33Lucknow24Chennai24Agra24Kolkata20Amritsar18Nagpur18Jabalpur11Patna10Raipur10Visakhapatnam9Cuttack8Dehradun7Cochin6Guwahati6Jodhpur4Allahabad3Varanasi2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 132(4)37Section 153C33Addition to Income22Penalty19Section 271(1)(c)17Section 25016Section 69A15Section 142(1)13Section 115B13

SRI B.V. SREENIVASA REDDY,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, The Deputy Srinagar Colony, Commissioner Of Near Arunodhaya Income Tax, Hospital, Central Circle – 1[3], Siriguppa Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bellary. Pan: Afbpr9736C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 19/01/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As Levying Penalty U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Penalty Passed U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Rws 271 Of The Act Is Not Discernable Whether The Penalty Proceedings Are Initiated For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Concealment Of Income Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Section 14812
Natural Justice12
Unexplained Investment8

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are squarely attracted in the case of the appellant.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The main contention of the Ld.AR was that the initiation of penalty has not been clearly mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act and therefore

MR. BUDNAR JAYAKAR SHETTY,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In mean time, the assesse filed appeal before CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of Rs.23,83,069/-. The CIT(A) deleted addition vide his order dated 2.4.2019, by observing as under:- “I have gone through the rival contentions regarding investment in Hotel and Lodging building of M/s. Grand De Himalaya Hotels

B N PRASANNA KUMAR,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the sale proceeds being cash seized shall not be subject to the rigor of section 69A of the I.T. Act and application of section 115BBE of the I.T.Act for the rate purpose. Moreover, section 271AAC of the I.T.Act gives discretion to the A.O. to levy or not to levy penalty

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

271(1)(c) of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the ground raised by the assessee that the AO had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) had also not accepted the ground that the proceedings

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1049/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

271(1)(c) of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the ground raised by the assessee that the AO had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) had also not accepted the ground that the proceedings

SRI RATHAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.) 2.1 Against this assessee carried this appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing as follows:- “15. Perusal of assessment order shows that appellant during AY 2009-10 had given an amount of Rs. 60 crore to Sh. Navneet Sinhania

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR , VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD , SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1299/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Dr. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 80Section 80P

section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account, availability of cash, whether the funds have been received from the members and whether the complete KYC of such members is available with the assessee ITA Nos.1138

ITO WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD, SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Dr. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 80Section 80P

section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account, availability of cash, whether the funds have been received from the members and whether the complete KYC of such members is available with the assessee ITA Nos.1138

ITO WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD , SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1138/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Dr. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 80Section 80P

section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account, availability of cash, whether the funds have been received from the members and whether the complete KYC of such members is available with the assessee ITA Nos.1138

TEJU KIRAN HOLE NARSIPURA MURTHY,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 789/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 115A(5)Section 115BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. E. CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS: 15. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in charging interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. 16. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. Each of the above grounds

SOMASHEKHAR VIRUPAX UMARAMI L/H SMT. LATHARANI . S UMARANI ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), HUBLI

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

ITA 867/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Somashekhar Virupax Umarani L/H Smt. Latharani S. Umarani Umarani Annexe Behind Hosur Jain Temple, Ito Vs. Near Chetana Weigh Bridge Ncm Ward-2(4) Hubballi 580 029 Hubli Karnataka Pan No : Aadpu0417E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Cit(A) Dated 31.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 271ASection 68Section 69ASection 69B

section 68 and 69A r.w.s 115BBE in a summary manner without establishing that such addition is unexplained one. To that extent addition made of Rs. 2,48,85,095 is illegal. 6. That there is no justification to demand total tax of Rs. 1,41,60,313/- including interest u/s 234B and 234C 7. That there is no justification

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR, RAICHUR vs. MARALBID PADMAVATHI, RAICHUR

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

penalty U/s. 271(1)(b) for non compliance is initiated.” 3. In pursuance to notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 24.04.2021 which was same as original return under section 139 of the Act. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side

SRI DHARAMSI R PATEL (HUF),BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income

SRI DINESH KUMAR R PATEL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1825/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars at all and the conclusion of the learned AO that penalty is to be initiated is not in accordance with law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner of Income