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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai35Ahmedabad26Delhi23Karnataka21Surat16Jaipur11Chennai11Bangalore11Hyderabad11Kolkata9Nagpur7Cochin7Rajkot6Pune4Jabalpur3Cuttack3Chandigarh2Indore1Allahabad1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271D29Section 271B16Section 269S14Section 142(1)11Penalty11Section 2749Section 44A8Section 2505Section 271E5Survey u/s 133A

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

273B for violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act. He therefore supported the orders of the lower authorities. Page 13 of 37 26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The loan transaction of Rs.4.40 lakhs is taken by the assessee from its director, Mr. Ashok Nair which includes the amount

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

3
Addition to Income3
House Property2

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

section 273B of the Act. 38. With respect to assessee's claim that the transaction in question was neither loan nor deposit because the amount having been received from the trustee, was receipt to oneself, there was no reason for levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act and that the default, if any, was of technical

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

section 273B of the Act. Page 36 of 37 With respect to assessee's claim that the transaction in question 38. was neither loan nor deposit because the amount having been received from the trustee, was receipt to oneself, there was no reason for levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act and that the default

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

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

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

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

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

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 120/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 121/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 44A

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

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

68,00,000/-, out of which Rs.9,60,000/- was received in cash. The Authorities below are of the view that the assessee has violated the provision of section 269SS of the Act, by receiving the sale proceeds from sale of Kalahalli Thimmanayak Suresh, Bangalore Page 8 of 9 immovable property in cash more than Rs.20