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.

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi66Mumbai63Raipur17Ahmedabad13Hyderabad5Pune5Kolkata4Jaipur1Amritsar1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 271(1)(c)7Penalty5Disallowance5Depreciation4Section 35D3Section 2742

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

L & T JOHN DEERE PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT P LTD) (NOW MERGED WITH JOHN DEERE (I) P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.975/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

u/s. 35D was a legal claim and simply because the claim was not accepted did not mean that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.1 Assessee also raised the following additional ground in the appeal: “1. The assessee submits that