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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 302clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi184Mumbai148Karnataka101Jaipur79Ahmedabad38Rajkot21Bangalore18Kolkata16Chandigarh15Surat14Ranchi14Kerala14Indore13Lucknow11Pune7Dehradun7Nagpur7Amritsar6Hyderabad6Chennai6Guwahati4Cochin3Raipur3Cuttack2Visakhapatnam2Rajasthan1Jodhpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Addition to Income7Section 143(3)5Penalty4Section 1483Disallowance3Exemption3Section 1472Section 102

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 2180/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Siddhesh Chougule[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10A(7)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 10 DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd ITA Nos.2180/PUN/2024 & CO 06/PUN/2025 6. In view of the former irrefutable facts, we see no reasons to deviate from the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case

Section 10(14)2
Section 2742
Section 10A(7)2

MEERA ANIRUDHA MIRGUNDE,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 550/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

302 (Punjab & Haryana) and argued that the ratio laid 3 ITA No.550/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2012-13 down in the said cases are clearly applicable to the facts on hand and prayed to confirm the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi. 6. Controverting the submissions of ld. DR, the ld. AR contended that the reliance placed on the decision

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 337/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 337/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 274Section 92C(2)

302 Preferred Brands Australia Pty Ltd., Australia Total 35,44,45,628 The assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark its international transactions with respect to RTS food segment and the same was duly accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee selected ten comparables having arithmetic mean of 5.87% in its TP study report to determine

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2526/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

Section 16(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 2,02,500, for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant. 5.2 The appellant respectfully submits that the above non- allowances of other deductions claimed of Rs. 2,02,500 is not justified

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2525/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

Section 16(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 2,02,500, for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant. 5.2 The appellant respectfully submits that the above non- allowances of other deductions claimed of Rs. 2,02,500 is not justified

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 723/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped. Your Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, withdraw, modify and /or substitute, and to withdraw the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The grounds No. 1 to 5 and 8 deals with the TP adjustment for payment of commission to Associate Enterprises