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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(26)(AAA)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi76Mumbai9Indore8Bangalore8Chandigarh8Kolkata7Agra6Pune2Hyderabad2Surat2Telangana1SC1Ahmedabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271A16Section 143(3)15Section 271(1)(c)13Addition to Income9Section 132(1)8Penalty7Section 153C6Section 132(4)5Section 40

SUCCESS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI

ITA 5608/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

10. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the finding of fact recorded by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it is clear that the addition of Rs. 19 lacs has been ultimately maintained against the assessee and the appeal of the assessee has been 14 I.T.A. No. 5608/Mum/2015 M/s Success Developers Pvt. Ltd dismissed

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

5
Disallowance5
Survey u/s 133A5
Section 153A4

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5772/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellant is that the AO imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of Rs. 2,97,41,250/- which was bad in law and without jurisdiction because the search and seizure action was taken after 1.4.2007 and therefore no penalty under section 271

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5771/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal by the appellant is that the AO imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of Rs. 2,97,41,250/- which was bad in law and without jurisdiction because the search and seizure action was taken after 1.4.2007 and therefore no penalty under section 271

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

10 acres of their land at Nagpur before execution of registered sale deed on 13-09-2006. Thus, we conclude that the registered value was Rs.1.10 crores , while Rs. 35 lacs was unaccounted cash paid by the assessee out of undisclosed income before the execution of registered sale deed by the Masker family on 13-09-2006 in favour

DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI vs. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5978/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

10 acres of their land at Nagpur before execution of registered sale deed on 13-09-2006. Thus, we conclude that the registered value was Rs.1.10 crores , while Rs. 35 lacs was unaccounted cash paid by the assessee out of undisclosed income before the execution of registered sale deed by the Masker family on 13-09-2006 in favour

RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 258/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No.5, Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground Floor Opera House, 2(4), Mumbai, 802, Old फनाभ/ Hinduja College Lane, Mumbai- Cgo Annex Building, M.K. 400 004 Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcr7550G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Smt. Leena Srivastava, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 32(1)

26,786 Less: Allowable Expenses a. Allowable Depreciation under section 32(1) (-) 5,24,801 b. Deferred Tax Asset (-)1,46,012 6,70,813 (-)6,90,88,453 II Income From Various Sources Income offered to taxation in response to Action Under section 132(1) to cover up any and every discrepancy in Business and Acc. Records

ACIT CEN CIR 7, MUMBAI vs. WIZCRAFT INTERNATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 6876/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Cc-7, M/S Wizcraft International Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Satyadev Plaza, Veera Old Cgo Annex, , M. K. Road, Desai Road, Andheri (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aaacw1931D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Senehal Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

26 (SC) He particularly made reference to the following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7 ITA No. 1259/Mum/2021-WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Each of the above ground of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a recognised business process management service provider engaged in delivering a wide portfolio of out sourcing

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

271 (Bom.) observed as under:– ―6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the stage of the assessment proceeding itself, it is the claim of the assessee that the term ―tax‖, as defined under section 2(43) of the Act would only include taxes chargeable under the Indian Income