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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 271D(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi57Jaipur54Mumbai41Hyderabad27Chennai26Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Kolkata14Pune13Indore12Agra9Bangalore9Surat7Rajkot5Chandigarh3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1Ranchi1SC1Cochin1Varanasi1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 271D37Section 269S15Section 54F11Penalty8Addition to Income6Section 271E5Section 143(3)4Section 2694Section 2504Section 271D(2)

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

2(21) are applicable when considering this term "any other person". The "context" in which the Chapter and section was introduced by the legislature and the legislative intent are very clear in this regard and we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, we hold that the active director of the assessee-company

4
Disallowance3
Exemption2

SRI.YARABOLU SESHADRI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1525/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 144Section 269Section 271DSection 274Section 68

68 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiating the proceedings under Section 271D by issuing a notice under Section 274 of the Act on 25.9.2014 in respect of accepting the loan amount of Rs.2,00,500 cash from Mr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy, father of assessee. The assessee vide his reply dt.13.10.2014 contended that provisions of Section

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

2(21) are applicable when considering this term "any other person". The "context" in which the Chapter and section was introduced by the legislature and the legislative intent are very clear in this regard and we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, we hold that the active director of the assessee-company

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

271D of the I.T.Act, which is a separate proceeding. Violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act cannot be the ground for making addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the I.T.Act is uncalled

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

2(21) are applicable when considering this term "any other person". The "context" in which the Chapter and section was introduced by the legislature and the Page 26 of 37 legislative intent are very clear in this regard and we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, we hold that the active director

MFAR HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 634/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Cherian K Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 269Section 271DSection 45(2)

271D and 271E and passed an order dated 29-12- 2014 after detailed verification of all records in the possession of your appellant. 03. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of holdings and leasing of properties had filed its return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.2,11,43,020/-. This was later revised downwards

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

section 271D of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee offered his explanation before the NFAC and contended that there was a reasonable cause for accepting the amount in cash. However, the assessing authority could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.8,39,000/- i.e. equivalent

DR. SANKARAN SUNDAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

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

ITA 572/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri. Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

68,982. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer had made an observation that the assessee had received cash of Rs.50,00,000 on entering into a sale agreement of a property and portion of the same was 2 ITA No.572/Bang/2022. Dr.Sankaran Sundar. deposited to the bank account of the assessee during the demonetisation period. Against the order passed

KALAHALLI THIMMANAYAK SURESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1165/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

2), Bangalore presumed that the assessee has no objection to levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act in violation of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly, levied the penalty of Rs.9,60,000/- which is equal to the amount of cash received by the assessee on sale of immovable property. Aggrieved by the penalty order u/s 271D