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.

77 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi702Mumbai624Jaipur255Ahmedabad233Hyderabad168Indore142Chennai138Pune132Kolkata99Surat79Bangalore77Chandigarh70Rajkot68Calcutta35Amritsar29Raipur27Agra26Nagpur24Visakhapatnam24Allahabad24Cuttack21Cochin19Lucknow18Ranchi12Patna10Dehradun9Jodhpur8Guwahati7Jabalpur7Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 271(1)(c)48Section 14843Section 132(4)43Section 153C39Penalty35Section 143(3)33Section 153A31Section 133A

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)

unexplained expenditure nor such incriminating materials were confronted based on which it can be alleged that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars either in scrutiny or penalty proceedings. Yet, the Ld. AO proposed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act vide notice dated 27.12.2017. The notice was in preprinted format and the words “furnished inaccurate

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

31
Section 6931
Unexplained Investment22
Disallowance18

SRI RAMAIAH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 977/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri C Ramaiah Reddy, Ramaiah Reddy Colony, Sector ‘C’, Basavanagar, Marthahalli, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Parbat, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 171(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained investment in jewellery. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) also vide order dated 17/3/2017 upheld the penalty order passed by the AO. 3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 17/3/2017 for asst. year 2011-12, upholding in the levy of penalty u/s 271

SIMRAN K SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Asst

ITA 1949/BANG/2017[21012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 Ms. Simran. K. Sayyed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhisma Tank, Ward - 1, Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. Pan : Bwgps 4895 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Mrinalini, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019

For Appellant: Ms. Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty of Rs.9,81,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under: 2.1 The assessee, engaged in real estate business, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 17.09.2012 declaring total

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

271(1), which provides as follows : "(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return ;" 6. The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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)

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 as well

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

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

KASIMALI M SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

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

ITA 1950/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Chandrasekhar , AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 2. There is not concealment of any income. There are no additions to the income declared. The income offered was declared only to co-operate with the department and to buy peace. The Department has not found concealment of any income. 3. The assessee prays leave

SMT. ANASUYA BASI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 193/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated. In the absence of the assessee’s explanation, I hold that the assessee has no explanation to the investment of amount of Rs.17,10,000/- shown as amount given to Shri H.T.Narayana Reddy, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of investments, the same is brought

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GHODAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1613/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Ghodawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore. … Respondent Aaccm6628B

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). For these and other grounds that may be 4. urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

SRI SATISH C KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 133ASection 68Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act for a sum of Rs.39,44,290/ on the stated reason that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and/or has furnished inaccurate particulars leading to escapement of tax. To be specific the penalty was levied basing on the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) towards (a) treatment of agricultural

SRI.SATISH C.KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 133ASection 68Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act for a sum of Rs.39,44,290/ on the stated reason that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and/or has furnished inaccurate particulars leading to escapement of tax. To be specific the penalty was levied basing on the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) towards (a) treatment of agricultural

SRI. H.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 601/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

unexplained investment in purchase of property u/s.69B of the Act. 11. The two additions made as above by the AO, were confirmed by the CIT(A) and hence the present appeals by the Assessees. 12. Grounds No. 2 to 6 challenge the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) (mentioned wrongly as Sec.148

SRI. M.J. SIWANI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 600/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Annamalli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

unexplained investment in purchase of property u/s.69B of the Act. 11. The two additions made as above by the AO, were confirmed by the CIT(A) and hence the present appeals by the Assessees. 12. Grounds No. 2 to 6 challenge the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) (mentioned wrongly as Sec.148

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

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

MURMU PANKAJ KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 134/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. The AO completed the assessment on 22/01/2024 on a Total Income of Rs. 43,73,435/- and raised total demand of Rs.5,43,487/- u/s 156 of the Act. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Elamurugu G., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Unexplained investment in purchases 1,68,540/- vehicle and furniture 5 Variation in sundry creditors 16,94,901/- 6 Disallowance of excess deductions claimed 54,06,759/- under the head departmental deduction U/s 43B Page 4 of 7 7 Disallowance of Deduction claimed under 2,71,454/- the head CBF 8 Disallowance of excess claim of 37,487/- depreciation

THE SHIMOGA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE,SHIMOGA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, SINDAGI

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

ITA 1499/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 145Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Before the assessing officer, the assessee offered following explanations and accordingly pleaded that the penalty proceedings should be dropped. ITA No.1499 /Bang/2016 Page 3 of 13 “1. We have fully co-operated during the assessment procedures and have submitted all the documents and records for the smooth