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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55Mumbai43Kolkata23Bangalore12Cochin11Chennai10Ahmedabad10Pune9Jabalpur5Hyderabad5Visakhapatnam4Raipur4Patna3Indore3Jaipur1Amritsar1Nagpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 194H24Section 201(1)16TDS10Section 133A8Section 1318Section 2018Survey u/s 133A8Section 403Deduction2

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. 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 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 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

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

ORDAIN HEALTH CARE GLOBAL PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 211/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ordain Health Care The Dcit, Global Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(1), Khivraj Complex Ii, Fourth Floor Chennai - 34 No.480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aabco5860A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri R. Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha,JCIT
Section 194Section 250(6)Section 271Section 32Section 43B

penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that there was no failure on the part of the Appellant in complying with notices during the course of assessment proceedings or any attempt to conceal income / furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Relief 6.1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/Or withdraw the above ground