BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

38 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 115Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai38Delhi22Kolkata7Ahmedabad2Hyderabad1Bangalore1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Permanent Establishment29Double Taxation/DTAA25Section 271(1)(c)18Business Income18Section 143(3)14Transfer Pricing11Section 14A9Section 2507Penalty7Section 1476Section 1485Reassessment5

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. b) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of additional income of INR 1,95,86,904 which has been suo moto offered to tax. c) The Appellant has provided bona fide explanation/reasonable cause in respect of 2 taxability of soft

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1161/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1158/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1159/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(1)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DZ BANK INDIA REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1160/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 148 rws 147 of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by holding that the income determined after reassessment was subjective and open to interpretation, whereas the facts are different and heads of income have been confirmed by the ITAT and only

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax- rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate

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

115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that the service agreement revenue on by the assessee is similar to the distribution agreement between the assessee and future India private limited and is taxable as royalty under article 13 of the India UK tax treaty taxable at the rate