Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

70 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82 Delhi70 Bangalore14 Kolkata13 Hyderabad6 Pune5 Ahmedabad3 Chennai2 Jaipur1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 92C64 Section 143(3)62 Transfer Pricing57 Addition to Income52 Comparables/TP40 Section 271(1)(c)29 Deduction21 Penalty16 Section 143(2)13 Disallowance

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

92C and such price was computed as per the manner prescribed under that section in good faith and due diligence. This divulges that penalty u/s 271

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4

13

Section 144C(13)12

Section 144C(5)11

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8751/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

u/s 92C of the Act. Under Explanation-7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an addition or disallowance made while computing the income under section 92C of the 3 Act is deemed to be concealed income or income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Expianation-7, however, states that penalty

TRIP ADVISOR TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 3955/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 01.03.2019 in appeal no. 93/18-19/1121 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal and has raised

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESAOTE ASIA PACIFIC DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7881/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the additions made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant with respect to the penalty proceedings and as no reply was filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has levied a penalty of Rs.87,29,070/- with respect to the additions made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEMALTO DIGITAL SECURITY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumardcit Vs. Gemalto Digital Security Circle – 10(1) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, A Wing New Delhi Berjaya House, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aabcs 5455 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. S/Shri Sushil Kumar & Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

271(1)(c) provided that; “Explanation 7- Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction 64for specified domestic transaction) defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then, the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92C(4) proviso along with rules discussed hereinabove at length. There is hardly any dispute that this chapter and the rules notified thereunder prescribe that an arms length price is not the price an assessee is charging or paying for being a party in the international transaction in question but it is the price i.e. to be paid or charged

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI vs. YUTAKA AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 4051/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriToufelTahir, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. DakshMalhotra, CA

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Section 92C of the Act and has acted bonafide in computation of arm length price. Therefore, there is no concealment of income & penalty shouldn’t be levied. Also, the AO has levied penalty on the fact that CIT(A) has not allowed any relief in respect of additional proposed by Assessee in the year under review. In that respect Assessee

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains or furnishes

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

ITA 508/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case: The assessee company is wholly owned subsidiary of Headstrong Services LLC USA, engaged in the business of development of computer software, providing IT enabled services, which are in the nature of accounting support, quality, human resource services, etc. 4. The assessee filed

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. Besides these, the AO proposed following additions: (a) disallowance of salary expenditure incurred on expatriate employees on secondment; and (b) disallowance of royalty paid to the parent entity. 2 Samsung India Electronics. 5. The assessee filed objections against the aforesaid proposed adjustments and disallowances before the Ld. DRP-1, New Delhi which were examined

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-16(*2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6944/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6944/Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 2Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(4)Section 92D

penalty proceedings under section 271(1}{c) of the Act. 5 ITA. 6944/Del/2019 Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, during the year under consideration the assessee had entered into following international transaction with it’s A.E:- S.No. Description

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned have grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned have grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3641/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

section 92C of the Act to the appellant. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4789/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

section 92C of the Act to the appellant. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3646/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

section 92C of the Act to the appellant. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

KAZSTORY ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 394/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 6.1. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) read with Section 274 of the Act against the Appellant.” 3.1 The assessee requested for admission of additional ground No. 7 vide letter dated 06.11.2017 which reads as under :- Ground No. 7 – Without prejudice to our other grounds

LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 808/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate; 8sFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, [CIT] - D. R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 154

sections 92C(2) of the Act, the TPO is directed to compute the arm’s length price as per the said provisions, where a number of prices were available for the same specifications on the same date in the customs data. Also, the relevant date froming the basis of the exchange rate used in computing the price as per customs

TECHNIP INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Shri Niren Gupta, CA/AR of the assessee attended proceedings from time to time. 3.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, consultancy, fabrication, supply and erection & commissioning of chemical plants. During the year, assessed company entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises which are reflected in Form

TECHNIP INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Shri Niren Gupta, CA/AR of the assessee attended proceedings from time to time. 3.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, consultancy, fabrication, supply and erection & commissioning of chemical plants. During the year, assessed company entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises which are reflected in Form