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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,069Mumbai764Bangalore217Ahmedabad184Jaipur141Pune110Chennai102Kolkata100Hyderabad72Indore64Surat53Chandigarh36Calcutta34Visakhapatnam29Raipur27Lucknow25Rajkot21Nagpur12Cuttack7Agra5SC4Cochin4Panaji3Dehradun3Jodhpur3Amritsar3Allahabad3Telangana3Karnataka2Rajasthan2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 54F3Section 260A2

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)
Section 48
Section 54F

u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITA No. 405/2005 (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking the market value of the shares quoted at the stock exchange on 05.05.1998 as the basis for computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act?" 2. ITA No.389/2007 filed by the Director of Income

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITTA/621/2017HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260A

price, and requesting them to place an order with the foreign headquarters were not auxiliary or preparatory in nature. The observations and findings of the High Court are eerily similar to the facts of this case: “Relying on these provisions, it is contended by the assessee that the liaison office was opened to act as a communication channel between