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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Reassessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai923Delhi842Jaipur312Ahmedabad277Kolkata252Bangalore220Chennai175Pune153Hyderabad83Rajkot81Indore74Chandigarh68Raipur68Surat57Amritsar50Cuttack42Cochin35Agra33Lucknow31Nagpur30Ranchi30Patna28Dehradun26Allahabad26Visakhapatnam25Guwahati17Panaji11Jodhpur9Jabalpur8Karnataka8SC4Varanasi3Telangana2Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 2609Section 271(1)(c)9Section 260A5Section 1485Section 153C4Section 143(3)4Section 1444Section 143(1)4Penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Though Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act has been extensively quoted and some observations are made, it is not a decision where the interpretation of Sec. 271(1)(c) fell for consideration before the Court. Therefore in Rajasthan Spinning & Mills case, the Supreme Court has categorically held at para

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

ITA/5/2014HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 133A
4
Reassessment2
Rectification u/s 1542
Survey u/s 133A2
Section 260
Section 271
Section 271(1)
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing at para 6 thereof that, “6. We are constrained to reject the assessee’s contention. We are pained to note that the Tribunal completely ignored the assessment order which was not based on any concession from the assessee. Concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee is a glaring fact

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA/251/2016HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 8 271(1)(c) of the Act observing at para 6 thereof that, “6. We are constrained to reject the assessee’s contention. We are pained to note that the Tribunal completely ignored the assessment order which was not based on any concession from the assessee. Concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee is a glaring

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

ITA/332/2007HC Karnataka26 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” 49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

ITA/340/2007HC Karnataka25 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260Section 271(1)(c)Section 72

reassessment for A.Y.98-99 vide its 10 subsequent letter and the claim for set off of loss of A.Y.98-99 was based on its return as well as original intimation which had not been rectified. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any justification for levy of penalty u/s 271

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

ITA/714/2015HC Karnataka01 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 260

reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee by the CIT(A). It was open to the Assessee to have taken a stand that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra), capital gain in the case of transfer of capital assets under Joint Development