Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

74 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,072 Mumbai796 Bangalore221 Ahmedabad186 Jaipur144 Pune111 Chennai105 Kolkata100 Hyderabad74 Indore64 Surat53 Chandigarh36 Calcutta34 Visakhapatnam29 Raipur27 Lucknow26 Rajkot23 Nagpur12 Cuttack7 Agra5 SC4 Cochin4 Panaji3 Dehradun3 Amritsar3 Allahabad3 Telangana3 Karnataka2 Jodhpur2 Rajasthan2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53 Addition to Income51 Section 80I38 Transfer Pricing27 Penalty27 Section 92C26 Section 143(2)25 Deduction23 Section 13219

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271

transfer pricing adjustments; 7. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 (C) of the Act. Page 2 of 11 ITA No 581 of 2020 Palred

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

Survey u/s 133A19

Comparables/TP18

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 92C

penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal”. 4. In addition to the above, the assessee has also raised the following

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 197/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.10.2019. The TPO proposed the adjustment of Rs.19,45,87,222/- in the IT-enabled services of the tax payers international transactions and Rs.2,80,004/- under interest on receivables outstanding u/s 92CA of the Act. Accordingly, draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 9 2130/Hyd/2017 it. The agreement there related to the quantification of taxable income but in the present case what is sought to be taxed

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2255/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2.3 The assessee has also filed a petition to admit the following additional grounds: Without prejudice

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2367/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2.3 The assessee has also filed a petition to admit the following additional grounds: Without prejudice

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

Transfer Pricing Officer)-1, Hyderabad and an order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was passed by him on 22.01.2021 determining the upward adjustment of Rs.15,45,798/- u/s. 92CA of the Act, mentioning as “assessment order”. 3.3 Subsequently, the TPO passed rectification order u/s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 154 dated 18.02.2021 reducing the enhancement from Rs.15

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2386/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Service Sector, IT Enabled Services and BPO Providers, back office support services to its associated enterprise (`ITeS'). The assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 25.11.2014 declaring total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)C are being initiated.” 7.1. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of business as the assessee had entered into the JDA. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had in fact had entered into JDA, which was akin to partnership, as there was an element

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2186/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Deepak P. Ripote

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92B

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) 1. Erred in not issuing Draft Assessment order as per procedure laid down u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A & 144C(1) of the Act by issuing the notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act & penalty notices u/s. 271

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 95,16,40,000/-. On receipt of the order u/s 92CA(3) from the TPO, draft Assessment Order was completed on 25.12.2019 and the sum proposed by the TPO was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such draft assessment order, assessee company filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transferred to the DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vide Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad‘s order u/s 127 of the Act in F.No.Pr.CIT-1,Hyd/Juris-Local/2020-21 dated 05.03.2021 as per jurisdiction. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 05.04.2021 through ITBA calling for explanation with respect to the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.3