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.

1,055 results for “TDS”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,067Mumbai1,055Bangalore327Chennai241Kolkata148Ahmedabad142Karnataka135Hyderabad116Jaipur106Raipur103Pune58Chandigarh51Indore38Nagpur37Rajkot34Surat34Visakhapatnam24Lucknow20Amritsar17Dehradun16Panaji10Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Patna8Guwahati7Cochin6Cuttack5Allahabad5Telangana5SC4Varanasi4Agra2Ranchi1Orissa1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 4065Addition to Income64Section 143(3)61Section 80I49TDS48Disallowance44Penalty39Deduction34Section 271(1)(c)33Section 148

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,055 · Page 1 of 53

...
30
Section 115J24
Section 201(1)22

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5644/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5643/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5648/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5642/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5808/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5810/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5804/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5805/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5807/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5809/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5806/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5080/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5085/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder the questionnaire appended to the notice