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.

38 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62Ahmedabad61Delhi38Bangalore38Jaipur31Indore18Raipur10Chandigarh6Pune6Kolkata6Lucknow4Rajkot4Surat3Hyderabad3Amritsar3Jodhpur1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)22Disallowance22Addition to Income21Section 143(3)20Section 43B16Section 36(1)(va)15Deduction15Section 3514Penalty14Section 144C

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

36(1 )(va) of the Act in relation to delay in depositing employees and employer’s contribution to the provident fund and the ESIC with concerned authorities, (ii) Disallowance of Rs.48,99,360/- on account of repair and maintenance expenses, (iii) Disallowance of Rs.26,45,967/- out of petty cash expenses by considering the same to be non genuine

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

13
Transfer Pricing10
Natural Justice10

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) iii) Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) 5,12,200/- iv) Bogus creditors 12,97,079/- v) Surrender on account of unverifiable creditors 100,00,000/- 4. On the aforesaid additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

va) read with section 43B of the Act and the action of the CPC in disallowing the same was erroneous and bad in law. 86. That apart, the assessing officer erred in making double adjustment of the aforesaid disallowance inasmuch – (i) income determined under section 143(1) of the Act is taken as the starting point for computing total income

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

36,26,752/- vide its order dated 31-07-2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing officer the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 15-11-2018 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5467/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is also initiated for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Disallowance out of Cost of Equity Placement: Rs 31,72,877” 6.3 Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance observing as under: 11 “12.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order and written submissions furnished

NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4294/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta and Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

Section 271(1)(c) would come into play. If the assessee’s claim is bona fide, then he will not be liable for penalty. Therefore, the precise question to be adjudicated by us is whether the assessee’s claim was bona fide or mala fide. 8. On the facts of the assessee’s case, we find that the assessee

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

va) to Section 28 was inserted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not have been levied on this ground. Undisputedly, it was a debatable issue and hence did not call for levy of penalty. Further, regarding the second ground of addition relating to claim of loss on transfer of land to DDA also, full disclosure in the return of income

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

va) to Section 28 was inserted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not have been levied on this ground. Undisputedly, it was a debatable issue and hence did not call for levy of penalty. Further, regarding the second ground of addition relating to claim of loss on transfer of land to DDA also, full disclosure in the return of income

M/S. MONIKA TELECOM PIPES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Monika Telecom Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 9Th Km Stone, Circle-2, Bhopa Road, Muzzarfarnagar. Muzzarfarnagar, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri P. Damkanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Damkanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. An amount of Rs. 2,500/- was debited under the head charity & donation but in the absence of any evidence the same could not be verified by the AO. Thus, it was held by the AO that the assessee had deliberately inflated expenses to such extent to reduce profit. 6. The Assessing Officer

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2315/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,62,01,570/- made on account of disallowance of 20% of deduction claimed towards inventory losses/leakages and 'RM/PM write off, despite the fact that

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. 5.2 Alternatively, the Ld. AO has erred in appreciating the fact and the law that the expenses incurred was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making adjustment

GENCHI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Rs.17,14,158/- I.T. Act. 4. The penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) by issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act on 15.12.2018 after being satisfied that the assessee had furnished in accurate particulars of its income. During penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration

DILESHWAR NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Hemand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

271/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in depositing the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF. The Central Processing Centre (“CPC”), Bengaluru vide intimation dated 17.05.2019 u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19, has made adjustment of taxes after considering the disallowance of expenditure on account

ADDL. CIT, BULANDSHAHR vs. M/S. DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result we uphold the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs

ITA 5910/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varky, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by this, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who in turn deleted the penalty. Against the deletion of this penalty revenue is in appeal before us. 2 Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh AY: 2007-08 04. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee hence claimed allowances which are not allowable and therefore

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3671/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The necessary facts on that account being that during the course of proceedings, the AO perused Form 3CD filed for the subject AY and asked the Appellant to show cause as to why late deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund ('PF') should not be disallowed

ACIT, 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3616/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The necessary facts on that account being that during the course of proceedings, the AO perused Form 3CD filed for the subject AY and asked the Appellant to show cause as to why late deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund ('PF') should not be disallowed