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.

1,495 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(14)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,941Mumbai1,495Kolkata399Jaipur392Bangalore388Ahmedabad384Indore268Hyderabad232Chennai231Pune216Chandigarh147Karnataka143Surat117Raipur90Rajkot73Amritsar60Visakhapatnam55Lucknow54Cochin53Allahabad51Nagpur40Calcutta36Ranchi32Cuttack29Agra22Guwahati17Patna16Dehradun16Kerala14Jodhpur11Panaji10SC10Telangana6Jabalpur6Varanasi4Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)65Section 143(3)41Addition to Income41Section 14840Section 115J32Disallowance31Penalty30Section 14727Section 201(1)

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,495 · Page 1 of 75

...
17
Section 4017
Deduction17
Section 80I16

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty leviedon learned

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

2 Explanations. Explanation 7 is a special provision dealing with penalty on transfer pricing adjustment whereas Explanation 1 is a general provision dealing with penalty on all types of additions/disallowances. Since Explanation 7 has been introduced for covering special circumstances, the general provision of Explanation 1 cannot be made applicable in case ITA Nos. 6267 to 6269/Mum/2018

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2647/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

iii) above are concerned the matter went upto Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and tribunal was pleased to adjudicate both the issues vide appellate order dated 18.05.2016 in ITA no. 199/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2009-10 , wherein one of us being Accountant Member was part of the Division Bench pronouncing the said appellate order dated 18.05.2016. We will see later

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI vs. ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Section 271(1)(c) and the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) , vide penalty order dated 29-06-2010 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t. disallowance of its claim for deduction u/s 80IC, the assessee filed first appeal with

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5724/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal/For Respondent: Shri H.N Singh,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

14,44,31,840/- in the assessment order was made by the AO , to be allowed to be carried to Real Estate Development Work-in-Progress Account in an assessment framed u/s 143(3). Further , the AO observed that there was a claim of depreciation of Rs.1,20,090/- in respect of the vehicles transferred from M/s. Hindoostan I.T.A

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2 SCC 718]” We further find that at para 9 of the order in Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2 SCC 718]” We further find that at para 9 of the order in Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2 SCC 718]” We further find that at para 9 of the order in Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4384/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

14 has been set aside by the hon'ble ITAT and therefore, the penalty does and therefore, the penalty does not stand on its own leg. not stand on its own leg. 3. a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the a) On the facts and circumstances of the case

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 4383/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan –SR. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

14 has been set aside by the hon'ble ITAT and therefore, the penalty does and therefore, the penalty does not stand on its own leg. not stand on its own leg. 3. a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the a) On the facts and circumstances of the case

EON AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3011/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

2,37,16,8757- Considering the facts of the case I am satisfied that minimum penalty of Rs. 79,05,625/- be levied in he case ofhe assessee.,1 therefore direct: the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 79,05,625/- by way of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan

AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2 : 1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that in this case return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs.7

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)

14-02-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-03-2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 5935/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the appellate order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (hereinafter called

M/S FLEMMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DFS INDIA P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9 (3) (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1197/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Flemingo Travel Retail Dcit –9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Limited (Formerly Known As Dfs India Pvt. Ltd.), Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, International Airport, New Vs. Mumbai 400020 Terminal 2, Csi Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Pan – Aaccd7412N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, Sr.D.R
Section 1Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43(1)

14,17,57,489/- u/s 115JB of the Act. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee company had been assessed to tax at its deemed income returned u/s 115JB of the Act, therefore, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could have been imposed for M/s Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd. Vs. DCIT- 9(3)(2), Mumbai

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5368/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the issues listed at (i) and (ii) in para 2.1 (supra) and upheld the levy of penalty on issues listed at S.Nos. (iii) and (iv) of para 2.1 (supra). 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-25, Mumbai dated 15.07.2014 for A.Y. 2006-07, the assessee has preferred

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

2 SCC 718].” 8 M/s. Prince Consultancy P. Ltd. On a perusal of the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand, we find that in the standard proforma (ITNS-29) used by the AO for issuing the said notice

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

section 271(1)(iii), penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is determined based on ‘amount of tax sought to be evaded’ which has been defined inter alia, as the difference between the tax due on the income assessed and the tax which would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced