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.

248 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284Mumbai248Jaipur141Karnataka102Kolkata90Bangalore81Chennai67Indore44Ahmedabad44Pune34Visakhapatnam28Raipur26Allahabad20Hyderabad19Chandigarh18Nagpur13Lucknow11Cochin9Surat7Amritsar5Rajkot4Ranchi4Jodhpur2Cuttack2Jabalpur2SC1Guwahati1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 263125Section 143(3)106Section 271(1)(c)87Addition to Income75Penalty41Section 13240Section 14A34Section 153A31Section 115J

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

263 [or section 264), after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

Showing 1–20 of 248 · Page 1 of 13

...
25
Section 14824
Disallowance22
Deduction21

SANDEEP BHIMRAO LAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, THANE

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

revised returns have been regularized by the revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bonafide and penalty u/s 271(l)(c) was not leviable, (v) Harnam Singh Bishan Singh Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. -vs- ACTT 69 TTJ 14 (Delhi) (2000) Where

KUSEGAON REALTY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-2, MUMBAI

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act and therefore, the orders passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore subject to revision u/s. 263

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C). 4) The appellant prays that your honour hold that the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest to the revenue and hence no revision u/s. 263

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C). 4) The appellant prays that your honour hold that the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest to the revenue and hence no revision u/s. 263

JAYESH V. SHETH,MUMBAI vs. CIT 16, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C). 4) The appellant prays that your honour hold that the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest to the revenue and hence no revision u/s. 263

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

revised computation of income filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings without making any meaningful and adequate enquiry. The PCIT also observed that the AO has erred in not initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act qua the reduction of claim qua depreciation from Rs.8,66,52,484 to Rs.80

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh
Section 270A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, t of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far he assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 AY 2017-18 as prejudicial to the interest of the Rev as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of enue

HARISH C. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-24, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodharish C. Mehta Pr. Cit-24, Times Square, 602 B, Piramal Chambers, „B‟ Wing, Nr. Marol Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Metro Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059

For Appellant: Shri Reepal C. Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

revised under Sec. 263. 5. The Pr. CIT after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee was however not persuaded to accept the same. Insofar, the claim of the assessee that jurisdiction under Sec. 263 would not take within its sweep dropping of the penalty proceedings by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) on the basis

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1800/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Katra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

revised its claim. The ld. D.R in support of his contention that pursuant to the ‘false claim’ of depreciation raised by the assessee the penalty was rightly imposed by the A.O, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Zoom Communication

TOP CLASS CAPITAL MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 4663/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : (2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Top Class Capital Dcit-1(3)(2), Markets (P.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual R.No. 540, M.K Road, V. Fund Building, Dr. D.N. Mumbai 400020 Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct5800G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4663/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 04.05.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Dcit-1(3)(2)/It-14/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we affirm his order. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” The AO framed an assessment order dated 01.03.2016 u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act in pursuance to directions given by learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 12.03.2015 u/s

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on account of long term capital gain offered by the assessee on structured product assessee does not violate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd 2010 322 ITR 158 SC wherein it has been clearly held that everything

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

271(1)(c) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 18. Learned AR appearing for the assessee submitted that assessee has furnished all the details of capital gains in her return of income. Hence levy of concealment penalty by treating the capital gains as business income is unjustified and the same may be deleted. Learned AR further submitted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

271(1)(c) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 18. Learned AR appearing for the assessee submitted that assessee has furnished all the details of capital gains in her return of income. Hence levy of concealment penalty by treating the capital gains as business income is unjustified and the same may be deleted. Learned AR further submitted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

271(1)(c) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 18. Learned AR appearing for the assessee submitted that assessee has furnished all the details of capital gains in her return of income. Hence levy of concealment penalty by treating the capital gains as business income is unjustified and the same may be deleted. Learned AR further submitted

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 provide that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

263 of the revision: “1. The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was electronically filed by the assessee on 29 November 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 539,949,260/ . The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was revised by assesses on 26 March 2015 declaring a total income

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Since the said issue has already been considered by DRP as well as AO, therefore, the said issue is not liable to be revised in accordance with law subsequently by invoking the revisional power u/s 263