BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71Chennai47Delhi43Jaipur31Visakhapatnam20Indore17Chandigarh13Ahmedabad13Kolkata12Hyderabad10Bangalore10Agra9Lucknow8Nagpur6Raipur6Rajkot6Pune5Allahabad4Cochin3Jabalpur3Cuttack3Surat1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)10Section 80I9Section 1545Penalty5Section 271D4Section 2504Section 143(3)4Section 92C4Exemption4

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give any direction or finding in respect of issues which

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Condonation of Delay4
Disallowance4
Section 254(2)3
ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give any direction or finding in respect of issues which

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the learned CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give any direction or finding in respect of issues

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give any direction or finding in respect of issues which

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

271(1)(c) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer not passed any order for levying penalty, this ground is preposterous and cannot be adjudicated. Dismissed accordingly. 41. In the result ITA No. 1970/Hyd/2011 and 1499/Hyd/2011 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. SA Nos. 83 and 84/ Hyd/2012 are dismissed as infructuous as we have already disposed of the appeals

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 144CSection 5

rectification order u/s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 154 dated 18.02.2021 reducing the enhancement from Rs.15,45,28,798 to Rs.11,72,618/-. 3.4 Accordingly, the income returned was enhanced as per the provisions of section 92CA(3) of the Act by a sum of Rs.11,72,618/- towards arm’s length price determined by the TPO u/s. 92CA

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 251/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N.Swapna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

rectification was sought by the assessee. The final adjustments as per the DRP's directions, totaled to Rs. 91,33,00,000/- for Software Development Services was added to the total income of the assessee and thereafter, passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Thereafter penalty proceedings under Section

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

rectification application under section 154 of the Act or appeal under section 246 of the Act. The assessee is required to choose the right course of action diligently which depends upon different facts and circumstances. 25.5 Nevertheless, the object for making the adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or framing the assessment under section