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.

12 results for “house property”+ Section 271Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka21Mumbai12Ahmedabad7Delhi5Jaipur3Nagpur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271E12Section 271D12Penalty10Section 271G9Section 92D(3)8Section 142(1)7Section 1326Section 269S6Section 269T6Search & Seizure6Addition to Income3Transfer Pricing2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SIEMENS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra v/s M/s. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/o, BSR & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1st Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra PAN – AABCS8516K Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Mr. Siddesh Chaugule Mr. Christopher Rebello Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 03/03/2025 Date of Order – 05/03/2025

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1096/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

house hold care, beauty care, feminine care and other products in India, Nepal, Bhutan and other markets as agreed between the assessee and its AEs. The 6 | P a g e ITAs No.1095-1097/Mum/2019 assessee filed its returned income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income at nil and the return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

house hold care, beauty care, feminine care and other products in India, Nepal, Bhutan and other markets as agreed between the assessee and its AEs. The 6 | P a g e ITAs No.1095-1097/Mum/2019 assessee filed its returned income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income at nil and the return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 897/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 275

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

271G of the Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars, concealing the taxable income and failure to maintain documents relating to alleged Transactions as per Section 92D of the Act The Assessee craves leave to add and submit such further facts, statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the objections.” 15. After

VAN OORD DREDGING AND MARINE CONTRACTORS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla & Ita No. : 7589/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Van Oord Dredging & Marine Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax Contractors Bv, (International Taxation)-Range-2, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, First Floor, Room No.108, Cst Road, Kalina, Scindhia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 098 Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:Pan : Aaach 3500 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Applicant By : "ी Shri Porus Kaka Respondent By : "ी Jshri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2016 आदेश Order अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य: Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2012, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In Pursuance Of Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Vide Order Dated 29.09.2012, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Aw, The Learned Ao, Based On Directions Of Drp Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.24,80,29,144 (I.E. Management Service Fees Of Rs.22,57,89,998 & Reimbursement Of 2 Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 098 Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:PAN : AAACH 3500 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Applicant by : "ी Shri Porus Kaka Respondent by : "ी JShri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 11-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-10-2016 आदेश ORDER अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद