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.

33 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi339Mumbai215Bangalore84Pune39Ahmedabad33Kolkata32Hyderabad13Chennai8Indore6Jaipur6Surat2Cochin2Chandigarh1Calcutta1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 27141Section 143(3)30Addition to Income25Section 271(1)(c)23Transfer Pricing18Penalty18Section 92C17Section 14A14Disallowance

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer a pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,53,03,582 made in relation to the services rendered to Hazira I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

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

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 8012
Section 92B9
Section 2749

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer a pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,53,03,582 made in relation to the services rendered to Hazira I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer a pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,53,03,582 made in relation to the services rendered to Hazira I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer a pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,53,03,582 made in relation to the services rendered to Hazira I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1872/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 92C

2,76,33,870/- under section\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act for furnishing inaccurate particular of income.\n6. Conclusion: In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”\n6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed\nby CIT(Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nBefore us, the Counsel

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

2. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 1.71.85.00.000/-: 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had failed to record proper satisfaction at the time

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

2. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 1.71.85.00.000/-: 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had failed to record proper satisfaction at the time

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATUL LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Madhuk, CIT-D.R
Section 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80SSection 92Section 92C

2,70,80,409/- being addition made by TPO. On being referred by A.O. u/s 92CA of the Act the TPO vide order u/s 92 CA (3) dt. 26/02/2008 made such adjustment which were upheld by Ld. CIT(A). The appellant contended that it disclosed all the material fact and adopted all appropriate method for working of Arm's length

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

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

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

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

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

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

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

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

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

92C(2)of the Act no transfer pricing adjustment is required to be made. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that in any case the instances are not comparable at all due to quantity and geographical factors 6 Sodium 78,713/- No comments for the smallness of Picosumlphat amount. 7 Tetrabutyl 31,81,642/- (a) FAR Analysis : As Above

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2204/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 7. 2. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 relate to the upward adjustment of Rs. 27,11,550/- in respect of transaction of sale of pesticides and pigments were not pressed by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee at the time of hearing of the matter

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1852/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

MASTEK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANG4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 172/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction'' means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets