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.

239 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi938Mumbai819Ahmedabad239Jaipur214Bangalore193Karnataka125Kolkata112Raipur99Chennai95Pune93Indore75Chandigarh58Hyderabad55Visakhapatnam38Surat35Calcutta34Amritsar34Rajkot33Nagpur29Guwahati28Lucknow25Allahabad23Cochin20Agra11Jabalpur9Patna5Cuttack5Panaji4Jodhpur3Dehradun3Varanasi3Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2SC2Telangana2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)68Addition to Income66Penalty65Section 143(3)57Disallowance42Section 271A29Section 92C29Section 14A25Section 148

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1392/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

Showing 1–20 of 239 · Page 1 of 12

...
16
Section 115J15
Section 13215
Condonation of Delay15

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1391/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1390/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1389/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 216/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 218/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 210/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 211/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 215/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 213/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 212/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 217/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 214/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

92, New York Tower-A, Ahmedabad. S. G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 059. [PAN No. AABCT 3026 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.R. Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 19.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 323/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 319/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 322/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 321/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 324/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 320/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92,634/- on\nwhich penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the\nvalue declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO\nhas levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had\nfailed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed\nthe penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA of\nthe