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.

158 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 801clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai158Karnataka99Delhi86Jaipur55Ahmedabad43Allahabad37Calcutta34Kolkata31Bangalore22Indore13Pune13Hyderabad10Visakhapatnam8Lucknow6Chandigarh6Amritsar5Surat5Guwahati4Chennai2Cochin1Jabalpur1Raipur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 143(3)70Section 6869Section 271(1)(c)48Disallowance37Section 69A33Section 14833Section 14727Penalty

DCIT(IT)-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VENU RAMAN KUMAR , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

section 271(1)(c). 15) In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the above mentioned Supreme Court and High Court judgment, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the penalty leviable W/s. 271

Showing 1–20 of 158 · Page 1 of 8

...
27
Capital Gains22
Long Term Capital Gains22
Section 143(2)20

GAWANDE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

801, Mahalaxmi Chambers 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 026 PAN – AABCG3865F v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Waglay Revenue by : Shri Shrikant Namdeo Date of Hearing – 07.01.2016 Date of Order – 07.01.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against

HARILAL MULUKCHAND METHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Harilal Mulukchand Mehta Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Flat No.2, Tannar Kutir, Mumbai Vs. Plot No.540, 17Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan Aadpm4219L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: T A Khan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The penalty under dispute was levied by the ITO Ward 19(1)(3), Mumbai u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 24.09.2012. 2 Shri Harilal Malukchand Mehta 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order

ARUNA SATISH KABRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 31st May, 2017

ITA 3525/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2008-09) Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra Vs. Ito-12(3)(4), C/O. Kabra Agencies Mumbai (Respondent) 2Nd Floor, Mustfa Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 (Appellant) Pan : Aahpk4542N

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In this appeal, the solitary issue raised by the assessee is with respect to penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,24,100/-. 2 Smt. Aruna Satish Kabra 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee

RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 258/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No.5, Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground Floor Opera House, 2(4), Mumbai, 802, Old फनाभ/ Hinduja College Lane, Mumbai- Cgo Annex Building, M.K. 400 004 Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcr7550G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Smt. Leena Srivastava, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 32(1)

801 b. Deferred Tax Asset (-)1,46,012 6,70,813 (-)6,90,88,453 II Income From Various Sources Income offered to taxation in response to Action Under section 132(1) to cover up any and every discrepancy in Business and Acc. Records 2,25,00,000 Gross Total Income (-)4,65,88,453 Total Taxable Income

SOHANLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1), THANE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5776/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by the learned assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. Provision of the Act ought to have been properly construed before disallowing the same. Regards being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the said provision ought

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 and 80IA of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 and 80IA of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 and 80IA of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 and 80IA of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 and 80IA of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year

DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UBS AG, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 696/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.696/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Joint Director Of Income Tax बिधम/ M/S. Ubs Ag Level 3, 2 North Avenue (Osd), (It)-4(3)(1) Vs. Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Room No.1701, Air India Complex, Bandra (E), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5003G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kailash Kanojiya (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

801/- considering all receipts as taxable and penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) of the Act was initiated. The CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy to the fact that the underwriting commission was taxable as „Fee for Technical Service‟ @ 10% on gross basis under Article 12 of the DTAA and gains on transfer of debt securities was assessable

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

801 (SC) ii. Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) iii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

801 (SC) ii. Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 983 (SC) iii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif

DCIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. VIJAY RAVJI GAJRA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 6261/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Rajnesh K. ArvindFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

801, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex. Sea Breeze Society, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Vs. Palm Beach Raod, Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400 706. PAN : AEDPG2541P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Rajnesh K. Arvind Respondent by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Tiwari Date of Hearing: 22/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 05/10/2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, AM This appeal

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 286/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR, Abhijit Patankar, contended that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in the case of the present assessee for which our attention was invited to page-24 of the order of the Tribunal along with pages

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 283/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR, Abhijit Patankar, contended that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in the case of the present assessee for which our attention was invited to page-24 of the order of the Tribunal along with pages

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 287/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR, Abhijit Patankar, contended that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in the case of the present assessee for which our attention was invited to page-24 of the order of the Tribunal along with pages

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 284/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR, Abhijit Patankar, contended that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in the case of the present assessee for which our attention was invited to page-24 of the order of the Tribunal along with pages

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 285/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. CIT-DR, Abhijit Patankar, contended that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in the case of the present assessee for which our attention was invited to page-24 of the order of the Tribunal along with pages