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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad11Delhi9Mumbai6Jaipur3Lucknow2Indore1Amritsar1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)24Penalty9Addition to Income7Section 153A6Limitation/Time-bar6Section 268A2Section 9(1)(vii)2

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INTERNATIONAL STEEL SERVICE INC., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 702/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Adit, Circle-1(2), International Vs. International Steel Service Inc., Taxation, Room No. 410, Drum 79, Qutab View Apartment, S.J.S. Shaped Building, I.P. Estate, New Marg, New Delhi Delhi (Pan: Aaafi7664J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

u/s 9(1)(vii) as fee for technical services & assessee failed to substantiate its explanation for not offering the said income for 2 ITA No. 702/Del/2012, AY: 2007-08 International Steel Service Inc. taxation at the time of penalty proceedings as well as the time of appellate proceedings. b. Without appreciating that the said addition would have escaped taxation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 3697/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 3696/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HEMANT PAL SINGH GILL, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 5439/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI INDER MOHAN THAPAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 5800/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 5801/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GLITZ BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals of Revenue are held to be not maintainable, and

ITA 5793/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Rs. 34,85,759/- ignoring the fact the penalty so imposed by the AO is in consequence of the assessee’s appeal dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) which were filed against the original order and the same was not adjudicated by the assessee by filing second appeal.” ITA NO.- 5801/Del/2016 1. Whether on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NOIDA vs. RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION TOWNSHIP, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the department filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5087/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Resident Welfare Association Circle-3, Township, Noida Gurinder Vihar, Awho Township, Pocket-P5, Sector-Chi-I, Greater Noida, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the act of 31,86,041/- by the ld AO is deleted. Thus, Tax effect in this appeal is Only Rs. 31,86,041/-. 2. At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. DR brought our attention to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 on low tax effect which applied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DENTSPLY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6532/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Densply India Pvt Ltd, Circle-7(1), 263, Fies Patparganj Ind. New Delhi Area, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd3171E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuwan Dhooper, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 3153440/- levied by the ld Assessing Officer was deleted. Thus, the tax effect involved in this appeal is only Rs. 3153440/-. 2. At the time of hearing it was found that case of the revenue is covered by the Circular of CBDT on low tax effect