Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai66 Mumbai46 Jaipur37 Hyderabad28 Karnataka21 Ahmedabad20 Kolkata17 Rajkot15 Pune12 Indore11 Delhi11 Bangalore9 Surat8 Dehradun8 Cochin7 Chandigarh4 Lucknow4 Patna3 Nagpur2 SC2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271B20 Section 272A(2)(e)9 Penalty8 Section 2747 Section 44A7 Section 143(3)6 Section 2506 Section 133A4 Section 139(4)4 Survey u/s 133A

SHRI. DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Akta Jain, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

68,460 u/s 139(4) 14.05.2019 2018-19 30.09.2018 07.05.2019 1,37,71,230 u/s 142(1) 9. As per section 273B of the Act, penalty under section 271B

4

Addition to Income3

Natural Justice2

SHRI. DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Akta Jain, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

68,460 u/s 139(4) 14.05.2019 2018-19 30.09.2018 07.05.2019 1,37,71,230 u/s 142(1) 9. As per section 273B of the Act, penalty under section 271B

SHRI. DOMMALLUR SHIVANNA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Akta Jain, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

68,460 u/s 139(4) 14.05.2019 2018-19 30.09.2018 07.05.2019 1,37,71,230 u/s 142(1) 9. As per section 273B of the Act, penalty under section 271B

KUMARSWAMY GANGASHARAISH KALLUR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act, by the AO during the reassessment proceedings. We noted that the assessee had filed return of income belatedly after uploading of tax audit report in Form 3CB but in the first round of assessment Page 6 of 7 proceedings, under section 143(3) of the Act, there was no penalty initiated by the AO. However

M/S. JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee is allowed for 10

ITA 1265/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Roti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)

271B 8. and 271F of the Act 8.1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in and upholding Assessing Officer's action in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B and 271 F of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed return of income and tax audit report for AY 2014-15 within the extended

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

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

LAXMILAL BADOLLA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

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

ITA 815/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 271BSection 271D

68 1TD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lumkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 274Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld