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.

50 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Bangalore54Delhi50Kolkata34Chandigarh10Ahmedabad9Chennai8Lucknow7Jaipur6Panaji5Ranchi3Raipur2Surat1Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1Rajkot1SC1

Key Topics

Section 4061Section 271C46TDS28Disallowance26Deduction26Section 201(1)23Penalty21Section 20119Section 143(3)18Addition to Income

M/S. VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3431/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivirgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit(Tds), C/O. Tata Teleservices Ltd, Range-51, Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Pan: Aadcr5798J Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ashita Farsanja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 197(1)Section 201Section 246ASection 271CSection 274Section 275Section 40a

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 194H16
Section 271(1)(c)16

disallowed of ₹ 22.50 lakhs on which tax was required to be deducted under section 194J of ₹ 2.25 lakhs totaling in all to ₹ 1 6189782/– has not been deducted by the assessee thereby the penalty provisions under section 271C

M/S MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.,,MEERUT vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5233/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not absolve the assessee from responsibility of deduction of tax at source. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee that no penalty under section 271C

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

disallowed a sum of ₹40,10,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the rules'). The PCIT called and examined the records and accordingly, notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 11th March, 2025 was issued, giving show cause notice with intent to revise the assessment under Section

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH KUMAR MATHUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 206ASection 260ASection 40

271C, and, section 40(a)(ai) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ai), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee’s tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

M/S. POWER PLANT ENGINEERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 634/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishipower Plant Engineers Ltd, Vs. Ito, 28, Najaf Garh Road, Ward-14(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcp3971H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atique Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Tulsian, FCA
Section 115Section 192Section 194CSection 40Section 40aSection 4o

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund/other fund shall be the due date provided under the respective

ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TV 18 BROADCAST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

disallowing the above provisions and referred the matter to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for imposition of penalty under Section 271C

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowance of Rs 58,31,18,115.is being made.” (Repetition in the order of the AO)” 10. This leads to the question to adjudicate as to whether the assessee can be held to be a defaulter as per the provisions of Section 201(1) even when the recipient has offered the receipts to tax. 11. The fact in this case

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES CO. P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-74, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

disallowed under section 40A(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.39,80,73,391/-. The JCIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi sent a proposal for penalty under section 271C

OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4902/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 194BSection 194RSection 194SSection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 274Section 275

271C has been initiated on 26.11.2015 and levied on 19.04.2016 which is well within the time allowed as per the provisions of Section 275(1). The period of counting of limitation should start only from the date, the Competent Authority initiated the proceedings. The Assessing Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-76(1) of the TDS range

MANJEET KUMAR HUF PROP. RAWALPINDI JEWELLERS,KARNAL vs. ACIT, HARYANA

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

ITA 2885/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143Section 194ASection 201Section 250(6)Section 40

disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act. We have expressed no opinion regarding other provisions under I.T. Act, such as Section 201(1A) and Section 271C

SHIVALIK CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the second issue of the appeal is also set aside to the file of the Ld

ITA 1026/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishishivalik Constructions P Ltd, Vs. Ito, D-245, Nehru Colony, Ward-8(2), Haridwar Road, Dehradun, New Delhi Uttarakhand Pan:Aajcs3277M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 40a

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

disallowance. Re: Consequential Grounds 30. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

disallowance. Re: Consequential Grounds 30. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

disallowance. Re: Consequential Grounds 30. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C