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.

73 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi302Mumbai291Ahmedabad73Chennai46Bangalore40Pune37Raipur37Hyderabad35Kolkata28Jaipur25Chandigarh18Indore18Panaji14Lucknow11Surat9Agra6Guwahati5Amritsar3SC2Telangana1Nagpur1Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14A80Disallowance56Section 143(3)43Section 271(1)(c)43Addition to Income40Penalty39Section 3734Section 115J18Depreciation

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1920/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the Tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the assessee were found to be correct. The matter ultimately reached the SC and the Hon'ble court upheld the view of the tribunal by holding that

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

18
Deduction18
Section 10B16
Section 92C15

PASL WINDTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/AHD/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2020AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271

deemed dividend though AO himself estimated ALV &assessed additional rental income but refused to acknowledge the security deposit for the same rented premises retained by the appellant. 6.Levy of interest u/s 234A/ 234B/234/C & 234D of the act is not justified. 7.Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

USHA DILIPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2253/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, raising demand of Rs. 5,707/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was also

SHRI GIRISHBHAI M.PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

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

ITA 337/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 337/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 Girishbhai M. Patel, A.C.I.T., 4, Regent Park, Vs. Mehsana Circle, Vanza Co-Operative Society, Mehsana. Part-Ii, Near Judges Bungalow, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Abypp8093M

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deemed dividend and interest on the housing loan amounting to Rs. 21,71,160.00 and 1,13,176.00 respectively. The penalty was levied by order dated 26th of March 2012 for an amount of ₹ 7,68,900.00 being hundred percent of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4.3 On appeal, the learned CIT-A confirmed the order

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

dividend is declared. Even otherwise, higher amount of inward remittance would result in higher foreign exchange earnings by India. In any case, as submitted by the A.R. that the appellant has paid substantial amount of tax amounting Rs.1.23 Crores and 1.44 Crores for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively and therefore also, there is no loss of revenue to the nation

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

dividend income of Rs.15,726/'-. Export incentive DEPB of Rs.74,50,143/- and sundry balance o) Rs.2,09.507/- for want of detailed. Since Ld. AR has not pressed these items, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. As regards to interest income, the claim of assesses is only in respect of netting. 14. Alter hearing Ld.DR we sent back this

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

dividend income of Rs.15,726/'-. Export incentive DEPB of Rs.74,50,143/- and sundry balance o) Rs.2,09.507/- for want of detailed. Since Ld. AR has not pressed these items, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. As regards to interest income, the claim of assesses is only in respect of netting. 14. Alter hearing Ld.DR we sent back this

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) was levied on November 27, 2012. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT (A) on May 9, 2013, for failure to comply fully with the notices. The assessee's non-cooperative attitude led to the case being referred for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income

SHRI ASHISHBHAI NATWARLAL SOPARKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 517/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-17 Shri Ashishbhai Natwarlal Soparkar, A.C.I.T., Lane 13, Bunglow No.246, Vs. Circle-3(3), Satyagrah Chhavni, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Ms Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 94(7)

penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 8.2 Moving further, as per explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act the addition or disallowances in computation income by the AO deemed concealment of income subject to condition provided therein. Under the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there

SNEHAL RAVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

deemed dividend under the Provisions of Section 2(22)(c) of the income tax Act be deleted. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty proposed to be levied by the learned AO u/s. 271

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 136/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 150/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 135/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 149/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess