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.

258 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi427Mumbai258Karnataka121Bangalore55Ahmedabad40Jaipur34Raipur33Indore31Kolkata29Chennai18Visakhapatnam15Lucknow13Chandigarh12Dehradun7Surat6Guwahati5Pune5SC3Jodhpur2Hyderabad2Rajasthan1Panaji1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)78Section 143(3)57Addition to Income44Section 14734Double Taxation/DTAA32Section 6829Penalty28Permanent Establishment25Section 14821

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5182/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.TAXATION) RANGE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5092/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

Showing 1–20 of 258 · Page 1 of 13

...
Section 13221
Business Income16
Section 153A14
For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4575/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1709/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

DDIT (INTERNATIONAL I. T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS ON LINE S.A, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5379/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3366/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1978/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1708/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3617/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3422/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5228/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

ADIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5155/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

THE DDIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD.,

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8463/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

THE DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8464/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1979/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4550/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8348/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1287/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

u/s. 234B and 234C of the I.T Act 1961. 14. When these appeals came up for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that whatever we decide for the assessment year 1998-99 will equally apply to the present appeals as well. 15. Vide our order above, we have dismissed the plea of the Assessing Officer, so far as taxability

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

established. The assessee has concealed particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars relating to sale of milk. In view the above discussion, I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of maximum and minimum penalty that can be levied is calculated as under:- Income

PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 33, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

established. The assessee has concealed particulars of his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars relating to sale of milk. In view the above discussion, I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of maximum and minimum penalty that can be levied is calculated as under:- Income