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.

88 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 272A(2)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai120Mumbai88Indore78Delhi75Bangalore59Surat34Karnataka25Kolkata22Lucknow22Cuttack16Ahmedabad16Kerala14Hyderabad13Jaipur12Visakhapatnam8Allahabad7Rajkot6Panaji5Pune4Amritsar4Jabalpur3Chandigarh3Nagpur2Raipur2Cochin2SC2Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)127Section 142(1)90Penalty77Section 234E57Section 271B44Section 14844Section 271D37Section 13131Search & Seizure

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

30
Section 271E28
Addition to Income15
TDS7

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

271, section 271A, [section 271AA], section 271B, [section 271BA], [section 271BB,] section 271C, [section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [section 271F, [section 271FA,] [section 271FB,] [section 271G,]] [section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub- ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271F

e. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Triumph International Finance L International Finance Limited[2012] 345 ITR 270.” .” 4. On contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that for supported the order of the lower

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the additional CIT u/s 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Since we note that the facts and the law involved in the captioned appeals for AY.2012-13

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the additional CIT u/s 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Since we note that the facts and the law involved in the captioned appeals for AY.2012-13

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMANGLA DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the additional CIT u/s 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Since we note that the facts and the law involved in the captioned appeals for AY.2012-13

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. KESARINANDAN TOWNSHIP P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the additional CIT u/s 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Since we note that the facts and the law involved in the captioned appeals for AY.2012-13

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5643/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

e) Magnum Infraprojects Ltd. (f) Mahendra Brothers (g) Dhani Products Pvt. Ltd. Please submit the information for these parties in the following format in different sheet for each concern for the period A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2012-13: A.Y. Name Bill No. Quantity Name of Purchase Corresp Name, Sale of the and date the Amount onding Address bill/ comp

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5642/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

e) Magnum Infraprojects Ltd. (f) Mahendra Brothers (g) Dhani Products Pvt. Ltd. Please submit the information for these parties in the following format in different sheet for each concern for the period A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2012-13: A.Y. Name Bill No. Quantity Name of Purchase Corresp Name, Sale of the and date the Amount onding Address bill/ comp

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5648/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

e) Magnum Infraprojects Ltd. (f) Mahendra Brothers (g) Dhani Products Pvt. Ltd. Please submit the information for these parties in the following format in different sheet for each concern for the period A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2012-13: A.Y. Name Bill No. Quantity Name of Purchase Corresp Name, Sale of the and date the Amount onding Address bill/ comp

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5644/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

e) Magnum Infraprojects Ltd. (f) Mahendra Brothers (g) Dhani Products Pvt. Ltd. Please submit the information for these parties in the following format in different sheet for each concern for the period A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2012-13: A.Y. Name Bill No. Quantity Name of Purchase Corresp Name, Sale of the and date the Amount onding Address bill/ comp

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5806/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

e) Magnum Infraprojects Ltd. (f)Mahendra Brothers (g) Dhani Products Pvt. Ltd. Please submit the information for these parties in the following format in different sheet for each concern for the period A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2012-13: Name, address and Sale Name of Bill No. and Name PAN of bill / the date of of the Purchase Corresponding