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.

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Indore56Bangalore54Mumbai42Delhi39Karnataka21Ahmedabad16Chennai11Jaipur8Kolkata7Panaji5Rajkot5Surat3Hyderabad2Cochin2Pune2Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Amritsar1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 144C3Section 132Transfer Pricing2Addition to Income2

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

271G were also initiated under law. 4. However, the assessee had challenged the draft assessment order while filing the proceeding u/s.144C of the Act before the ld.DRP, the ld.DRP had passed direction vide order dated 25.06.2021. It was the contention of the ld.AR and the grounds raised before us that after passing the order, the AO had not passed

PLANET ONLINE PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 279/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmana.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 92C(2) of the Act. 10. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of assessee company u/ s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,12,790/-. 11. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/ s 10AA of the Act for Rs. 61,644/-. 11.a Ought to have appreciated