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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi285Mumbai157Karnataka100Jaipur88Bangalore45Raipur41Ahmedabad40Calcutta34Kolkata29Chennai21Allahabad17Chandigarh13Hyderabad12Amritsar11Indore10Cochin10Agra9Lucknow9Pune8Dehradun8Surat7Panaji5Nagpur5Visakhapatnam4Rajkot1Rajasthan1Telangana1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 408Section 271(1)(c)6Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 32(1)(iia)3Comparables/TP3Disallowance3Section 1312Section 194J

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

u/s 271(1)(c) had erred in not appreciating the following important facts: a) The appellant had offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide act. b) In compliance of the disclosure, the appellant had filed the revised statement incorporating the additional income during the course of assessment proceedings also claimed the TDS voluntarily, which was remained

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

2
Section 1482
Capital Gains2
Deduction2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned DRP erred in not giving any directions in respect of the same. b. The learned ACIT / DRP erred in not appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant for penalty proceedings to be initiated in this regard. 9. Each

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 7/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Kumar Jain and Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya Bajpai

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 6. The AO passed the assessment order uls 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 17.04.2015 (Received by assessee on 07.05.2015). Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the Assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.06.2015. In respect of transfer pricing adjustment

RBL BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 650/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

194(A)(3)(iii)(a) whereby no tax is required to be deducted at source in respect of any interest credited or paid to any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies or any co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a co-operative land mortgage bank

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 131

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SAS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2284/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

194 of the paper book wherein the conditions of services provided by the consultant is reflected. On an examination of said agreement we note that the assessee in the capacity of consultant provide professional services in support of the Institute‟s R&D department with a condition that the consultant shall not subcontract any of consultant‟s obligations. The Institute

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2315/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

194 of the paper book wherein the conditions of services provided by the consultant is reflected. On an examination of said agreement we note that the assessee in the capacity of consultant provide professional services in support of the Institute‟s R&D department with a condition that the consultant shall not subcontract any of consultant‟s obligations. The Institute

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved with the said reassessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the legal objection in ground no.1 and questioning the validity of the reassessment proceedings and also the ground on change of opinion