BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

74 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai628Delhi467Jaipur165Ahmedabad153Raipur124Hyderabad108Chennai100Kolkata99Pune91Bangalore74Indore66Chandigarh63Rajkot52Amritsar47Nagpur44Surat31Guwahati27Visakhapatnam17Ranchi16Lucknow14Patna14Cuttack13Jabalpur9Varanasi7Cochin6Allahabad5Panaji4Dehradun3Jodhpur3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)46Addition to Income45Penalty41Section 143(3)34Section 14A31Section 25027Section 270A26Disallowance26Section 132(4)

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)

Loss account for F.Y 2014-15, it is seen that M/s Concorde Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. have declared Net Profit of 5.8%. Please Explain. ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 36 Ans.- Yes Sir, I confirm that for F.Y. 2014-15, we have declared net profit of 5.8% for M/s Concorde Housing Corporation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

22
Transfer Pricing21
Section 143(2)20
Section 271B17

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

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

set off of brought forward losses in consequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution by assessee suo-moto amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. The facts that lead to levy of penalty U/s 271

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs.11,08,482/- which was claimed by the assessee by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss Account. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in the note at the end of the computation has stated that the provisions of section

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1) , HUBBALI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1354/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1359/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1352/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1356/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1358/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1357/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1355/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

UTRANS,HUBBALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1360/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri R. Chandrashekar
Section 201Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) Challenging the 147 order 2018-19 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act Challenging the 147 order 2019-20 Penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act 2. At the outset, we find that all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte and therefore we are deciding the appeals by way of this common order

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1162/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty u/s 270A has been invoked in the appellant's case as there has been an addition to the returned income. The section 270AA has an in-built immunity provision which permits an appellant to accept the addition by paying taxes and not filing the appeal. However, this immunity has to be sought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SMT. VANKADARA PADMAVATHI, HOSPET, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

loss of Rs.68,47,444. The assessee was issued statutory notices. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Mineral Embassy, which is engaged in procurement and export of iron ore. & CO 37/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 11 The business activity commenced during the FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that

SRI. SUMERU HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty equal to the tax, Sri Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 7 under section 271(1)(c) merely based on assumptions and presumptions, ignoring the brought forward losses of the appellant. 4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned lower authorities ought to have been guided by the well settled

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

271(1)(e) read with Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C of the Income

DAWALSAHEB BABUSAHEB SULTANBHAI,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

ITA 1181/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Vs. Ito, 1A, Mehaboobnagar, Ward – 1(1), Dharwad – 580 008. Hubli. Pan : Aqzps 4249 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

271 B of the Act for default u/s 44AB. The penalty is confirmed and all the grounds are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act, assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee had filed a letter dated 22.07.2024 requesting for an adjournment

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2890/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 881/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 205/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains