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.

2,607 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,107Mumbai2,607Ahmedabad701Jaipur620Kolkata579Bangalore563Chennai428Pune421Indore416Hyderabad335Surat278Chandigarh181Raipur177Karnataka146Rajkot145Amritsar115Visakhapatnam111Cochin106Lucknow104Nagpur87Cuttack81Allahabad60Guwahati58Agra44Ranchi42Dehradun37Calcutta36Patna34Panaji28Jodhpur22Jabalpur18Kerala14SC12Telangana7Rajasthan4Varanasi3Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)112Section 143(3)107Addition to Income65Penalty49Disallowance30Section 14729Section 25026Section 153A26Section 148

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 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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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

Showing 1–20 of 2,607 · Page 1 of 131

...
25
Section 27119
Section 80I18
Deduction18

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

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)

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied

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) of the I.T. Act. But in this case the appellant has explained that it made a bonafide claim on the basis of advice given by the auditor and all the facts relating to the claim and material to the computation of income have been disclosed by the appellant. 7.3 In the case of Yogesh R. Desai

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

15(2)(2), Mumbai had a chance to decide whether penalty can be levied when penalty has not been initiated for a specific charge. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 01.09.2017 in this regard held as under: - 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates that penalty prescribed therein

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2976/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.D. JimuliaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai,DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

2) which was issued after one year of filing of return of income. Even after that when the case was under hearing, the assessee did not offer the income of Rs.12,23,642/- being redemption of HDFC Mutual Fund unless he was specifically asked to explain the same. It is , therefore evident from the conduct of the assessee that

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 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)

2 is reproduced as under: Arti Shailen Topiwala 15 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 8.3. In the this form No. 35 In the this form No. 35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned

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)

2 is reproduced as under: Arti Shailen Topiwala 15 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 8.3. In the this form No. 35 In the this form No. 35 , order challenged has been , order challenged has been mentioned as u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 u/s 144 dated 17.03.2016 (sic). The date of of 2017 has been inadvertently inadvertently inadvertently mentioned mentioned

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)

15 I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 271(1)(c) and difference of Rs. 3,27,524/- was considered for levying penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) on the grounds that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which was suo-moto disallowed by the assessee in the return of income filed in pursuance to notice issued u/s 148 . The difference was on account