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.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi32Raipur30Ahmedabad23Mumbai18Nagpur6Kolkata6Guwahati5Jaipur5Bangalore3Indore3Surat1Lucknow1Pune1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 115J29Depreciation23Addition to Income22Business Income21Section 143(3)15Section 271(1)(c)13Section 234B13Penalty13Section 32(1)(iia)

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/AHD/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further the argument of the Revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law, tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

12
Disallowance10
Section 507
Section 143(2)7

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 7.0. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 7.0. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 270/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 292/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 269/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 293/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 294/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

ITA 271/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ARVIND LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 862/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 Arvind Ltd.(Earlier Known As Arvind A.C.I.T., Mills Ltd.), Vs. Circle-1, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT. DR
Section 115JSection 14A

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, quite apart from the fact that none of the additions made to the appellant's returned income was at all warranted/justified, it was just not possible even to allege that the appellant was guilty

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 373/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 368/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 369/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 367/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 372/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 374/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) passed w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby companies engaged only in distribution of power are also eligible for additional depreciation is held to be prospective by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. in ITA No. 1527/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thus the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, BARODA

ITA 445/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

32(1)(iia) of the Act, the companies which are either only generating or generating and distributing can claim depreciation. But in present assessee’s case it is only the distribution activity and not included the ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 446/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

32(1)(iia) of the Act, the companies which are either only generating or generating and distributing can claim depreciation. But in present assessee’s case it is only the distribution activity and not included the ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

ITA 617/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

32(1)(iia) of the Act, the companies which are either only generating or generating and distributing can claim depreciation. But in present assessee’s case it is only the distribution activity and not included the ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, MEHSANA

ITA 616/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

32(1)(iia) of the Act, the companies which are either only generating or generating and distributing can claim depreciation. But in present assessee’s case it is only the distribution activity and not included the ITA Nos.2089/A/2013, 1751/A/2016, 1968/A/2016 445/A/2018, 446/A/2018, 616/A/2018 & 617/A/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively