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.

262 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ TDSclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi869Mumbai812Bangalore262Ahmedabad177Chennai156Kolkata140Jaipur134Raipur106Hyderabad87Pune81Indore61Surat50Chandigarh47Nagpur42Rajkot37Karnataka29Visakhapatnam27Amritsar21Lucknow17Cochin15Dehradun13Allahabad10Panaji10Jabalpur8Jodhpur7Guwahati7Patna6Agra5Cuttack4Ranchi2SC1Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 200A56Section 234E54Addition to Income48Section 271(1)(c)43TDS40Deduction38Section 25035Section 143(3)33Section 10A32

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 501/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

Showing 1–20 of 262 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 20131
Section 4030
Penalty28

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 546/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2015-16

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

SRI P A USMAN ,SULLIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 888/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.888 & 889(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) Shri P.A.Usman, D No.2-106-2, Chennavara House, Peruvaje Post, Bellare, Sullia-574 212 Pan No. Aappu4406R Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi, Jcit

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No.888(B)/2019 and ITA No.889/B?2019 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-09-2019 (A.K.GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) sACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: *am ITA Nos.888 & 889(B)/2019

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2019-20

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNUR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1726/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , RANEBENNURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1672/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri PriyadarshiMisra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

TDS, the assessee has placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. L.G.Choudhary (33 taxmann.com 156)(Guj.) We have gone through the said decision and we notice that the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 495/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 316/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the revenue that but for the survey u/s. 133A of the Act, the assessee would not have disallowed expenditure on which TDS

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 317/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the revenue that but for the survey u/s. 133A of the Act, the assessee would not have disallowed expenditure on which TDS

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 494/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1630/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act 6. 6 months from the 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty initiated 7. Decision Time barred Time Time barred Time barred Time barred barred M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore 6.1 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to take note