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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi57Mumbai37Chennai13Bangalore12Indore11Rajkot7Kolkata4Jaipur4Ahmedabad3Chandigarh2Hyderabad1Cochin1Agra1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 194H26Section 201(1)18TDS12Section 133A8Section 1318Section 2018Survey u/s 133A8Section 271C5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 37

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

3
Deduction3
Penalty3

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 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 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 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 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

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

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2083/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

For Appellant: Ms. Veni Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273

u/s 271C, in so far as these defaults are concerned, is not called for and delete portion of the penalty pertaining to these defaults. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 5.1 The substance of the issue is whether the assessee is in default and liable for penal proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the expenditures as detailed hereinabove

CHINNUSAMY SATHYA ,NAMAKKAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , NAMAKKAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1331/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1331 & 1332/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Chinnusamy Sathya, Income Tax Officer, No.9-119 Aathikattur, Anangur Post, Ward-2, Thiruchengode-Tk, Namakkal Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 304. [Pan: Ddqps3730F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca(Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 144Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has received Commission or Brokerage income of Rs.36,16,396/- from Aliceblue Commodities Pvt. Ltd. On which TDS of Rs.3,61,638/- has been deducted. However, assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year evading the tax as alleged. The assessee did not appear in assessment proceedings

CHINNUSAMY SATHYA,NAMAKKAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1332/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1331 & 1332/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Chinnusamy Sathya, Income Tax Officer, No.9-119 Aathikattur, Anangur Post, Ward-2, Thiruchengode-Tk, Namakkal Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 304. [Pan: Ddqps3730F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca(Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 144Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has received Commission or Brokerage income of Rs.36,16,396/- from Aliceblue Commodities Pvt. Ltd. On which TDS of Rs.3,61,638/- has been deducted. However, assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year evading the tax as alleged. The assessee did not appear in assessment proceedings

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

MAHALINGA TEXTILES,THENI vs. ITO,WARD-1, THENI

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

ITA 1296/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 11. The Draft Assessment Order along with computation