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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi96Mumbai57Kolkata34Ahmedabad32Karnataka21Jaipur21Raipur17Cochin11Nagpur11Chennai11Bangalore10Pune7Visakhapatnam6Panaji5Jabalpur5Lucknow4Indore4Amritsar3Jodhpur2Hyderabad2Patna1Chandigarh1Kerala1Rajkot1Surat1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 194H24Section 201(1)17TDS11Section 20110Section 133A8Section 1318Survey u/s 133A8Section 194C4Section 2713Section 40

N.SETHUMADHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2574/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2574/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 N. Sethumadhavan, The Income Tax Officer, No 594, Alagiri Samy Salai, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 14(1), K.K. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai - 600 078. [ Pan: Amrps 6175K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

section 44B of the Act, the Assessee filed Audited financial statements and Tax Audit Report in Form 3CB and 3CD and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued along with questionnaire. In compliance

3
Penalty2

TH 130 M/S BHARATHIYAR PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

Section 194C of the Act in respect of contract payment. However, the same was not deducted during the year under consideration. However, subsequently, the assessee deducted and paid `30,272/- on 29.08.2013. The balance amount of `18,476/- along with interest of `33,636/- was paid on 12.03.2014. These factual aspects are not in dispute. On identical circumstances, Delhi High

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2804/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 755/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/CHNY/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1415/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

271 of the Act, in view of our answer in favour of assessee, this issue is also required to be answered in favour of assessee. Even otherwise as rightly held by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd.(supra), the penalty could not have been levied in all the appeals filed by assessee Coca Cola

ACIT, TIRUPPUR vs. QUANTUM KNITS P LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2164/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2164/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Quantum Knits P. Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle, Vs. 181, Kollupalayam Village, Arasur Post, 121, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur-2. Coimbatore 641 407. [Pan:Aaacq1959K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 29.05.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals)-Ii, Coimbatore Is Against Facts, Law & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A)-Ii, Coimbatore Has Erred In Holding That Since The Recipient Has Admitted The Sum Received As Income & Paid Taxes There On Then The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

u/s. 40(a)(ia). The decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages does not squarely apply to the facts and law of the case and can be distinguished on facts and law. 5. The CIT(A)-II, Coimbatore should have taken note of the fact that if the contention of the assessee that the taxes has already