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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi130Mumbai58Bangalore20Pune16Ahmedabad15Kolkata9Chennai7Surat3Jaipur2Chandigarh2Karnataka1Indore1

Key Topics

Penalty7Section 1486Section 271G6Section 92D6Addition to Income6Section 153A5Section 270A5Section 271A5Section 1394Section 270A(2)

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

3
Permanent Establishment3
Survey u/s 133A3

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer the said

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot, therefore, be said that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DISHNET WIRELESS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1278/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 271GSection 273Section 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92D

92D has got nothing to do with the change in the ownership/management of the assessee company. :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 1278/Mds/2016 2.6 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee entity continues to be in existence as a going concern irrespective of the change in the management of the company. Therefore the relief granted to the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AUTONEUM NITTOKU SOUND PROOF PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1956/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 1956/Mds/2016 अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Autoneum Nittoku Sound Proof Tax, Vs. Products India Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), Plot No. Rns 15, Sipcot Industrial Chennai - 600 034. Growth Centre, Oragadam, Vadakupattu Post, Kanchipuram, 603 204. [Pan: Aaecr 1409H]

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 92D(1)

section 115JB of the Act with a loss of Rs. 84,48,950/- and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the details. The Assessing Officer made

AUGUSTAN KNITWEAR P LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 538/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. R. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 271ASection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

penalty provisions u/s. Sec.271AA are leviable only when there is failure to maintain information and documents and report of certain transaction but assessee has maintained details called u/s.92D(1) of the Act. Whereas provisions of Sec. 271G shall apply to failure to furnish documents. And on comparing the provisions of Secs.271AA and 271G of the Act. Sec 271AA. Without prejudice