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.

21 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi249Mumbai160Chennai104Jaipur61Kolkata44Bangalore34Ahmedabad27Visakhapatnam23Karnataka22Pune21Chandigarh18Indore18Lucknow16Hyderabad15Agra11Rajkot8Raipur8Dehradun7Nagpur6Jabalpur4Allahabad4Cochin3Cuttack3Surat3Amritsar3SC2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25Section 80I22Section 15417Addition to Income10Section 269S8Section 270A8Section 92C8Disallowance8Section 1327

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act. Ld. AR further submitted that as per original assessment order the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee failed to comply with the provision of section 269ST of the IT Act by receiving cash of Rs.2,50,14,000/- and hence a reference was made to the Joint Commissioner

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Section 132(4)7
Business Income7
Search & Seizure7

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &
Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

154 of the Act for reducing the TP adjustment on account of Manufacturing Segment 4 to Rs.16,90,85,442/-. Accordingly, rectification order was passed on 1st Feb 2017 with reduced TP adjustment of Rs.18,94,51,272/-. The Appellant filed an appeal to the CIT(A) against the order of TOP. After careful consideration, the Ld CIT(A) passed

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 379/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)

rectification of the mistake in computation of working capital adjustment. The Assessing Officer is directed to expeditiously dispose of the application of the assessee filed u/s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the ground No. 12 raised in the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. In ground No. 13 the assessee has assailed non-granting of functional and risk

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

rectification applications filed which is subject matter of the JAO and does not have any bearing to the penalty proceedings by the Faceless Penalty Officer. Therefore, the further contention of the assessee to keep the penalty proceeding in abeyance is baseless. Accordingly, it is inferred that this is a fit case for levying penalty u/s. 270A of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. KISHOR SHANKAR GARVE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were dropped which clearly demonstrate that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, for having not completed the project within stipulated period. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that during the course of survey operation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. KISHOR SHANKAR GARVE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were dropped which clearly demonstrate that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, for having not completed the project within stipulated period. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that during the course of survey operation

KNORR-BREMSE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-14,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1957/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 274 read with section 271 (1)( c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income on account of transfer pricing adjustment, without appreciating the fact that, the transfer pricing adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion between the Appellant and the learned

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 338/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 463/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 540/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 519/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1177/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1178/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

rectification thereof but the same was denied by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal, by the CIT(A) after taking into account provisions of Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act and holding that this explanation was clarificatory in nature and hence, it covered pending cases also. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal by taking, inter