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.

330 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 149(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi382Mumbai330Jaipur140Karnataka101Ahmedabad83Chennai67Kolkata60Hyderabad58Pune56Bangalore53Indore45Raipur41Calcutta34Rajkot31Chandigarh27Lucknow23Amritsar20Allahabad20Visakhapatnam19Cuttack17Guwahati15Nagpur14Surat14Dehradun9Cochin7Jodhpur3Ranchi3Agra1Gauhati1Patna1Rajasthan1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income53Section 143(3)44Section 271(1)(c)40Section 14838Section 14A36Section 14730Section 153A27Section 153C22Section 115J

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

Showing 1–20 of 330 · Page 1 of 17

...
19
Penalty19
Disallowance19
Reassessment11

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

APTIVAA MIDDLE EAST FZE,DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. M/s. Aptivaa Middle East FZE Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to the assessee) is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aptivaa Consulting Solutions

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

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

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 153 r.w.s 153C of the Act. In the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj). The following finding has been given as under.:- “8. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. Before dealing with the contentions, it would be relevant to reproduce Explanation 5 to Section 271

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

b.) If deduction is claimed based on bona fide belief, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The Ld. counsel submits that in the present case deduction u/s 10B in original return was based on Form 56G and hence appellant had a bona fide belief and thus, subsequent withdrawal cannot lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Rheal Software

DEEPAK JATIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shalla) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4943/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

149 ITR 751 (Patna) (head note): ‘Under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4942/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

149 ITR 751 (Patna) (head note): ‘Under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given

COAST LINE SHIPPING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

149 ITR 751 (Patna) (head note): ‘Under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given

BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 816/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Biren Gubhawala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 BhaveshPravinchandraSheth Assistant Commissioner of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAVPS0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, AR Revenue

KARL PESTONJI KERAWALLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7152/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blekarl Pestonji Kerawalla V. I.T.O. – 11(2)(4) Kerawalla Chamber (4Th Floor) Aayakar Bhavan, 25, P.J. Ramchandani Marg., M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

149 ITR 751 (Patna) (head note): ‘Under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given

BERMACO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2825/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1 )(c) the Ld. AO has in para 9 to para 11 discussed the limb' concealing particulars of such income by invoking Explanation 1 and thereafter in para 12 held that the assessee has deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 read with Explanation I thereto

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1596/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

149 ITR 751 (Patna) for the proposition that mention of an incorrect charge in the notice of penalty would not render the penalty proceedings void-ab-initio. 11. In reply, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that non-striking off of irrelevant portion of the standard form of notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1

ORBIT ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 1597/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

149 ITR 751 (Patna) for the proposition that mention of an incorrect charge in the notice of penalty would not render the penalty proceedings void-ab-initio. 11. In reply, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that non-striking off of irrelevant portion of the standard form of notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1

MEGAYIELDS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2581/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhirandra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43(5)Section 73

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There should not be any doubt that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) prescribes two types of charge viz., (a) concealment of particulars of income and (b) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the above said notice the AO did not specify the type of charge for which the penalty

PRINCE CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6068/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45ESection 54E

u/s. 271(1)(c) Office of the PEN/32/PG.31 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax- i 3(1)(2) Room No. 218, 2'' floor, 2014-05 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 20. PAN: AAFCP8573K Date: 11-03-2015 To, The Principal Officer, M/S PRINCE CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., 1203, EMP 48, EVERSHINE HALLEY, THAKUR VILLAGE, KANDIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 101. Whereas in the course of proceeding

NAVNITLAL K PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

Section 139Section 15Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in all the years under consideration.” 5.9 Similarly, in the case of Shri Prem Arora (supra), the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal has held in paragraph 9 to 12 as under: 9. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. The first

ROBIN BIPIN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. Acit- Cc-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1St Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm8343D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act. The CIT (A) as well as the ITAT deleted the penalty levied by the A.O by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of in Prem Arora v. DCIT [(2012) 149 TTJ 590 (Del)]. In an appeal filed by the Department, the High Court held as under:- "21. Thus