BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

82 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82Delhi70Bangalore14Kolkata13Hyderabad6Pune5Ahmedabad3Chennai2Jaipur1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)47Transfer Pricing37Section 143(3)33Section 92C33Addition to Income32Deduction30Permanent Establishment28Penalty24Section 8022

RNT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 92C of the IT Act 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act is also

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

Business Income21
Section 4020
Disallowance20
ITA 1916/MUM/2024[2012]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
22 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: 20/08/2024
Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

section 92C(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1373/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801BSection 80ISection 92C

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) of Rs 11.34,45,500 in respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of export of finished goods. 2. In doing so he failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) the Appellant had computed the price paid in the international transaction in accordance

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1702/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801BSection 80ISection 92C

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) of Rs 11.34,45,500 in respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of export of finished goods. 2. In doing so he failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a) the Appellant had computed the price paid in the international transaction in accordance

KENT ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

92C of the Act. Ground No. 6-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding /confirming the action of the Learned AO in erred in appreciating that the additions made in the assessment order is merely difference of opinion between the Appellant and the Learned AO/TPO

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3878/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c))\nACIT, CC-38, Room no.\nVs.\nM/s. United Phosphorous Ltd.\n32(1), Ayakar Bhavan,\nUniphos House, Madhu Park,\nMaharishi Karve Rd.,\n11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai.\nMumbai-400020.\nPAN: AAACU 3440 P\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nMs. Vasanti Patel Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18/03/2025\nDate

M/S. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was made for determination of arm's length price (ALP) in respect of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. Ld. TPO made the following adjustments in the Transfer Pricing Order: 3 International Specialty Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 S. No. International Transaction Adjustment in Rs. 1 Provision of ITES

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 5344/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order\npassed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540\nbeing commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to\nRs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the\narm's length principle\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDL.L TD), MUMBAI

ITA 6709/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2005-06
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order\npassed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540\nbeing commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to\nRs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the\narm's length principle\n\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 7027/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order\npassed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540\nbeing commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to\nRs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the\narm's length principle\n\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances

THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the learned AO be directed to drop the initiation of the aforesaid penalty proceeding. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 6681/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyboehringer Ingelheim Vs. Income Tax Officer, India Private Limited Range 14(1)(2) 1102, 11Th Floor, Hall Room No. 431, Aaykar Mark Business Plaza, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gurunanak Hospital, Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb2979C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia & Hemen Chandariya Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 92C

92C and not allowing the Appellant the benefit of variation of +/-3% in determining the ALP. 20. erred in making adjustment on alternate basis by holding that in case the Appellate authorities uphold that the Appellant is engaged in provision of support services only. the comparable companies engaged in support services identified by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation

DCIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. UNITED PHOPHOURUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNWON AS SEARCH CHEM INDL. LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 6807/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order\npassed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540\nbeing commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to\nRs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the\narm's length principle\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 6950/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Ms. Saisudha Multani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540 being commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to Rs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the arm's length principle\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SEARCH CHEM INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 7028/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

92C(4) on the basis of the order\npassed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(3) of Rs 98,13,540\nbeing commission @ 0.6% on corporate financial guarantees amounting to\nRs1,633,500,000 provided on behalf of associated enterprises to meet with the\narm's length principle\n\n3 On the facts and in the circumstances