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.

52 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 144C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi668Mumbai398Bangalore137Pune55Kolkata52Ahmedabad49Hyderabad31Jaipur21Chennai20Dehradun12Chandigarh5Indore5Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Rajkot3Surat2Cochin2Karnataka1Jabalpur1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Section 92C53Section 144C37Transfer Pricing29Section 144C(5)27Section 271(1)(c)25Section 27120Addition to Income20Section 144C(13)

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 143(2)14
Penalty12
Comparables/TP10

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also issued to the assessee. 271(1)(c) of the Act, was also issued to the assessee. He argued He argued, that this order violates the provision of Section 144C

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50Section 50B

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 disclosing total income of Rs. 4,81,69,267/-. The 2 Ambo Agro Products Ltd. A.Yr. 2009-10 assessment was completed

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 409/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 410/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2308/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 274Section 92C

u/s 92CA(4) of the Act and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to deal with the invalid draft assessment order. 3.8 In view of our decision at Para 3.7 above, there is no need of DRP directions on Ground of objections between No. 2 to 5.” 3. A perusal of the above DRP order would reveal that DRP has categorically

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

144C(5) of the Act dated 19.11.2015 for the M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 Assessment Year [ in short Asst Year] 2011-12. Both these cross appeals are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. RATE OF TAX Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

144C(5) of the Act dated 19.11.2015 for the M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 Assessment Year [ in short Asst Year] 2011-12. Both these cross appeals are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. RATE OF TAX Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

144C(5) of the Act dated 15.10.2015 for the Asst Year 2011-12. 2. Though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before us with regard to the transfer pricing addition, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the instant case and based

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 1998/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 2646/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 487/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Background and brief history of the assessee are brought out in the Assessment order, which is extracted for ready reference:- “1. The assessee M/s Dongfang Electric Corporation (DEC), China is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of the People

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 572/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Background and brief history of the assessee are brought out in the Assessment order, which is extracted for ready reference:- “1. The assessee M/s Dongfang Electric Corporation (DEC), China is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of the People

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

ITA 163/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

144C(1) by DCIT, Circle-11 (1), Kolkata on 27.02.2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 should not be held as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. You may accordingly furnish your written submissions u/s 263(1) of LT. Act, 1961 by 10.02.2021, in this regard elaborating and/or evidencing your contentions/submissions. Considering the pandemic

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR- 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)

144C(5) of the Act dated 8.3.2017 pursuant to the 154 petition of the assessee and arrived at the revised PLI of comparables after taking into account working capital adjustments as under:- Sl.No. Comparable companies PLI as per Corrected Revised PLI order of the PLI post on TPO dt. directions incorporation 31.12.2015(%) issued by the of working Dispute capital Resolution

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

ITA 2400/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)

144C(5) of the Act dated 8.3.2017 pursuant to the 154 petition of the assessee and arrived at the revised PLI of comparables after taking into account working capital adjustments as under:- Sl.No. Comparable companies PLI as per Corrected Revised PLI order of the PLI post on TPO dt. directions incorporation 31.12.2015(%) issued by the of working Dispute capital Resolution

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.06.2017 pursuant to the Directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short the ld DRP] dated 09.05.2017 and 29.08.2016 respectively for the Assessment Years [ in short Asst Year] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. As identical issues are involved in both these appeals