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.

28 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 44Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi45Mumbai28Ahmedabad1Dehradun1Jaipur1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Double Taxation/DTAA21Permanent Establishment20Business Income18Section 271(1)(c)7Penalty6Section 9(1)(vi)5Section 44B4Section 234B3Capital Gains3Transfer Pricing3Addition to Income3Comparables/TP3

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3187/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2072/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. 2. In ground 1, assessee has challenged addition made on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price (ALP, hereafter) of export commission paid to the overseas associated enterprises (AE). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a subsidiary

MARITIME VANGUARD PTE LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5999/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5999/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Maritime Vanguard Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit (International C/O Srbc & Associates, Taxation)-3(2)(1) Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Room No.1615, 16Th Floor, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcm3609F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – 3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 27.06.2019 Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “General 1. Erred In Assessing Total Income At Rs39,66,00,300 As Against Returned Income Of Rs Nil; Taxability Under The Income Tax Act. 1961 ('Act) A.Y.2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend/ delete/ withdraw any or all of the grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal so as to enable the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to decide

MARITIME VANGUARD PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6642/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maritime Vanguard Pte Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Srbc & Associates, Llp, Vs. Income Tax (International 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Taxation) Circle-3(2)(1), 16Th Senapatibapat Marg, Dadar, Floor, Room No. 1607, Air (West), Mumbai-400028. India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aajcm3609F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a Singapore based company. It is a tax resident in Singapore. The control and management of its affairs is situated entirely in Singapore and hence it is a non-resident in India. The assessee filed its first Indian return of income

M/S. I 2 TECHNOLOGIES (NETHERLAND) B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for AYs 2002-03, 2004-05 are allowed and the appeal filed by Revenue against deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is dismissed

ITA 2410/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M.V.Rajguru
Section 21(1)(c)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal ITA No.2410/Mum/2007 for AY 2002-03 and appeal No.ITA No.1718 /Mum/2008 for AY 2004-05 is directed against the CIT(A) -33 dated 1.12.2006 and 31.12.2007 respectively in quantum assessment. The appeal ITA No.6449 /Mum/2008 for A Y- 2002-03 is directed against the order of ld CIT(A) dated

DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4550/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

DDIT (INTERNATIONAL I. T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS ON LINE S.A, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5379/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.TAXATION) RANGE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5092/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5228/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1979/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3617/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

ADIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5155/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1709/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1708/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

ADIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. REUTERS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4575/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5182/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

THE DDIT(IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD, UK, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1978/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8348/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that

REFINITIV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1287/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

44D of the act. He accordingly tax the revenues of the assessee received from routers India private limited in the form of distribution fee, product distribution fee and license fee on gross basis at 30% up the provisions of section 115A of the act. With respect to the revenue on front the agreement with ANI media, he held that