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.

145 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,318Mumbai2,751Ahmedabad763Jaipur639Bangalore638Kolkata632Pune495Indore386Chennai365Hyderabad345Surat279Chandigarh237Raipur192Karnataka145Rajkot142Amritsar124Visakhapatnam116Lucknow103Nagpur96Cochin94Cuttack82Allahabad58Ranchi54Agra54Dehradun42Calcutta37Guwahati36Panaji33Patna33Jabalpur22Kerala15Jodhpur13SC12Telangana9Varanasi6Rajasthan4Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E84TDS25Section 26023Penalty13Section 271(1)(c)12Addition to Income10Section 260A9Section 10B7Section 143(3)

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

ITA/5/2014HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...
6
Section 143(1)5
Section 1485
Survey u/s 133A3
Section 133ASection 260Section 271Section 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) (c) of the Act is legally sustainable in the light of the fact, which surfaced in the survey under Section 133-A of Act, that claim of 100% depreciation made by the respondent-assessee was not only false but was made in respect of non-existent goods, and that penalty is liable to be levied not only

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

13. The said addition was challenged by the assessee in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the meanwhile, the matter relating to valuation of the tiles imported by the assessee under Section 14 of the Customs Act came to be decided by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein a part 24 relief

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

u/s 143(3) received from the Assessing Officer. The decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. V State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) would be applicable to a case like this since the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, if any, if at best technical in nature. The assessee has shown reasonable cause for filing his return of income

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately’. 3. The assessee contested the said proceedings by contending that on the date of levy of penalty, the assessee ceased to exist inasmuch as the same was merged with the UB Holdings Ltd., vide Karnataka High Court order dated 31.08.2005. It was contended that the notice issued in proceedings is invalid. On merits

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/506/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/503/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.503/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/500/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.500/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/502/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.502/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/505/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.505/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/501/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.501/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

ITA/504/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10BSection 260

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation given by the Respondent-Assessee. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/18788/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/26589/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/19762/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/12097/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11889/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR