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.

130 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92D(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi130Mumbai58Bangalore20Pune16Ahmedabad15Kolkata9Chennai7Surat3Jaipur2Chandigarh2Karnataka1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Transfer Pricing84Addition to Income81Section 92C80Comparables/TP75Section 92D62Section 144C54Penalty34Section 143

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in Section 271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

24
TP Method22
Section 271(1)(c)20
Disallowance19

ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 1Section 2Section 271Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

92D and maintain or furnish incorrect information or document to report SDT in respect of domestic transactions without any reasonable cause. Since, the assessee has made a default as envisaged in section 271AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, accordingly, penalty u/s 271AA of the I.T. Act of Rs. 1,44,15,394/- (i.e. 2% of value of transaction

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3378/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(1)Section 92E

Section 273B of the Act which overrides the provisions of 271G for the purposes of levy of penalty which stipulates that penalty u/s 271G may not be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 7 MMTC Ltd. One cannot lose sight of the fact that whether the information u/s 92D (1

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

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

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

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S. BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant, which is bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Bacardi Ltd. is a Bermuda based holding company while the operations are controlled by Bacardi International Ltd. The assessee “Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd” (BIPL) is an AE by virtue of common capital

BOETTCHER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal stand allowed for

ITA 6610/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 234ASection 271Section 92Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee Company is engaged in the business of trading of roller, chemical, blanket, Testing equipments, liner, web cloths and other items related to printing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3529/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 9(1)Section 92D

271(1) (c) and 271AA. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271AA vide order dated 3/1/2014 to the tune of Rs. 10,37,46,481/- which is 2% of the value of international transactions of Rs. 518,73,24,61/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty u/s 271AA, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3530/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 9(1)Section 92D

271(1) (c) and 271AA. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271AA vide order dated 3/1/2014 to the tune of Rs. 10,37,46,481/- which is 2% of the value of international transactions of Rs. 518,73,24,61/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty u/s 271AA, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed

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

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7176/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92D

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and proceeded to make the transfer pricing addition based on redetermination of the arm's length price of the domestic transaction towards transfer of 3 power. by using single year of financial data (i.e. data for FY 2012-13 only) (iii) as against multiple

JUVALIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7201/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92Section 92BSection 92CSection 92DSection 92E

1 lakh of penalty under section 271 BA of the Act for violating the statutory requirement under section 92E of the Act. 5. Assessee preferred separate appeals challenging the levy of penalty under section 271AA and section 271BA of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) by orders dated 29.8.2018 dismissed both the appeals holding that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BSC C & C JV, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1401/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12. Acit, Circle 62(1) Bsc C & C Jn Room No.2202, 22Nd Vs. 74, Hemkunt Colony Floor New Delhi 110 048 Civic Centre Minto Road Pan: Aadfb8115G New Delhi 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: : Sh.Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92Section 92D

271 AA of the Act. 4. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 4.1. Ld.CIT(A) deleted penalty by observing as under: “4.3.1. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and also judicial citations relied upon by it. I have also considered the assessment order. Following facts have emerged: 1

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

u/s 10B of the Act in view of provision of section 10B(1) read with section 108(4) of the Act. 3. The Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/TPO's action of making an adjustment of Rs. 8,09,277/- to the income of the Appellant by holding that the international transactions