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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Ahmedabad11Delhi9Mumbai6Jaipur3Lucknow2Indore1Amritsar1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 4010Section 14A3Penalty3Disallowance3Section 271(1)(c)2Section 268A2Section 271(1)2Section 115J2Section 1942Section 194J

DCIT- 26(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTA MORTAR LINING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2458/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit-26(1), Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Hindusta Mortar Lining Llp Gala No.35, Shree Jee Ind. Estate, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Pan: Aaffh4358D ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 02.03.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) (C) of Rs 662,21/- imposed in respect of difference between enhanced income confirmed by ITAT over and above the returned income based on evidences which prove that the assessee has debited purchases from parties which did not make actual supply of goods and, thereby, falsified the books of accounts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

2
Addition to Income2
Revision u/s 2632

ACIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. GNM REALORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed owing to low tax effect as indicated above

ITA 1895/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Mittal,DR

Section 268A of the Income-tax Act 1961. 16. Hindi version will follow. (Neetika Bansal) Director (ITJ), CBDT, New Delhi. Copy to: I.T.A. No.1895/Mum/2017 1. The Chairman, Members and all other officers in CBDT of the rank of Under Secretary and above. 2. All Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and All Directors General of Income Tax with a request

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

penalty was to be levied on the tax assessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed minus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. Hon’ble Supreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

ACIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INIDA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sodhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 201Section 40

u/s 1943 and accordingly took the view that the assessee should have TDS from the payments to made to the hospitals. Since the assessee did not deduct tax at source, the AO disallowed such payments by invoking the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance so made

ACIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2940/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sodhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 201Section 40

u/s 1943 and accordingly took the view that the assessee should have TDS from the payments to made to the hospitals. Since the assessee did not deduct tax at source, the AO disallowed such payments by invoking the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance so made

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3789/MUM/2014[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhdcit- Circle 7(1), M/S Novartis India Ltd. (Formerly Room No.622, Aayakar Vs. Known As Hindustan Ciba Geigy Bhawan, M.K.Road, Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. Sandoz House, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400 018. Pan/Gir No.: Aaach2914F (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Somaiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman kumar
Section 253Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs. 744,535/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. We have seen that the tax effect involve in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.10,00,000/- as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015. 2. Shri Hitesh Somaiya