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.

178 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 9(1)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,090Mumbai855Jaipur238Ahmedabad218Bangalore178Karnataka123Indore115Hyderabad100Kolkata93Pune93Chandigarh82Chennai76Raipur48Surat44Lucknow42Calcutta35Rajkot31Cuttack29Visakhapatnam26Amritsar26Allahabad26Agra25Cochin22Nagpur20Ranchi15Dehradun8Patna7Guwahati6Varanasi6SC5Jabalpur4Telangana3Jodhpur2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 143(3)53Section 271(1)(c)51Penalty44Section 10A36Section 153C34Disallowance30Transfer Pricing28Deduction

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) to impose a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 34 of 36 income. Consequently, a penalty of Rs.10,50,340/- equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, was levied. 8. The back ground of levy of penalty in this assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 178 · Page 1 of 9

...
23
Comparables/TP20
Section 14718
Section 14816

SMT. B. BHAGYALAKSHMI vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3),

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 162/BANG/2014[2004 - 05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2018

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarsmt. Bhagyalakshmi, W/O B Shreeramulu, Vidyagiri, Sb Colony, Club Road, Near Kumaraswamy Temple, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore. . Respondent Pan - Ajnpb 7530N. Appellant By : Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23-3-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-3-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Bangalore Dated 30/10/2013; Upholding The Orders Of The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore Dated 28/6/2010 Levying Penalty Of Rs.18,00,000/- U/S Ita No.162/B/14 2

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 132Section 132ASection 153CSection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

VI, Bangalore dated 30/10/2013; upholding the orders of the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore dated 28/6/2010 levying penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- u/s ITA No.162/B/14 2 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for asst. year 2004-05. 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-6, Bangalore dated 31/10/2013 for asst

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

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

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

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

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

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

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 787/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 786/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

VI, Bangalore for the A.Y. ITA No.1812 & 1844/Bang/2013 Page 2 of 8 2006-07 confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. 2. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an additional ground challenging the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The additional

SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1812/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Dr.Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

VI, Bangalore for the A.Y. ITA No.1812 & 1844/Bang/2013 Page 2 of 8 2006-07 confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. 2. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an additional ground challenging the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The additional

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

ITA 1663/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai and Ms. Smrithi Athreya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143Section 271Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

vi. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Learned authorized submitted that that the penalty proceedings are not warranted under section 271 (1) ( c) of the act on the above disallowance because of the reason that. i. Assessing officer has recorded his inability to follow the binding decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of 56 taxmann.com

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

ITA 1662/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Hemant Pai and Ms. Smrithi Athreya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143Section 271Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

vi. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Learned authorized submitted that that the penalty proceedings are not warranted under section 271 (1) ( c) of the act on the above disallowance because of the reason that. i. Assessing officer has recorded his inability to follow the binding decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of 56 taxmann.com

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 30.11.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.70

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 30.11.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.70

SRI SURYANARAYANA GNANESHWARA RAO ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3274/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita No.3274(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Suryanarayana Gnaneshwara Rao, No.83, Nisa Enclave, Mm Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore-560 005 Panno.Aempr9001C Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c ) of the Act. vi. Without prejudice, the penalty as levied is arbitrary, excessive, unsustainable and liable to be deleted. vii. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed”. 3 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee