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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai40Mumbai39Delhi37Ahmedabad21Karnataka21Indore16Jaipur15Pune8Chandigarh7Hyderabad6Surat5Lucknow4Bangalore4Kolkata3Jabalpur2Patna1Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Allahabad1Dehradun1Cuttack1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 272A(2)(e)9Section 2636Penalty4Section 271D3Section 12A3Section 142(1)3Section 143(1)2Section 275(1)(c)2Exemption2

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

section 275(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act have been initiated vide notice dated 21.12.2020. According to ld. A.R., the time limit to pass penalty order is 6 months from the end of month in which penalty proceedings were initiated would expire on 30.6.2021. She, therefore submitted that, competent authority could

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)

section 275(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act have been initiated vide notice dated 21.12.2020. According to ld. A.R., the time limit to pass penalty order is 6 months from the end of month in which penalty proceedings were initiated would expire on 30.6.2021. She, therefore submitted that, competent authority could

SUVILAS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1140/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Prasanna N Urala
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 272A(1)(d)

68,924/-towards ‘Model House’ and the balance business and other expenses were duly supported by bills, vouchers and ledgers and hence required no disallowance. 6. The PCIT erred in treating the assessment order as one 'passed without making inquiries' merely because a different view was possible; a mere difference of opinion cannot confer jurisdiction under section

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