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.

479 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi145Mumbai105Bangalore69Pune35Ahmedabad25Kolkata23Chennai17Hyderabad16Jaipur15Lucknow8Chandigarh5Indore4Rajkot4Surat2Cochin2Patna2Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 10A96Section 143(3)81Section 271(1)(c)71Addition to Income63Section 14A57Deduction42Transfer Pricing40Penalty37Disallowance36Section 11

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately.” 5.2 Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is an appeal before us on the following grounds: 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in denying the deduction under Section 10A

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Showing 1–20 of 479 · Page 1 of 24

...
34
Section 80I27
Comparables/TP27
ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
15 Apr 2026
AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately.” 5.2 Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is an appeal before us on the following grounds: 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in denying the deduction under Section 10A

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

271(1)(c) of I.T. Act]; and CIT vs. Mastek Ltd. (2015) 53 taxman.com 142 (Guj.)[in which it was held that no penalty is to be levied to wrong claim of deduction u/s 10A if there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars]. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR in the case

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 828/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald
Section 10ASection 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

10A of the Act is not due to any inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee but on a purely presumptive basis. That being the case, in our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to be visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, in the course

RHEAL SOFTWARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

section 271(1)(c) ; in show cause notice dated 15.01.2014, admittedly the AO has not struck off between concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income; in penalty order at para 5, AO holds “by making such improper claim of depreciation, the assessee has willfully reduced its incidence of taxation and has thereby concealed its income as well as furnished

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5772/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)( c ) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the income in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act but the additional income was shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act after search operation was conducted on the assessee. In our opinion

J.R DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5771/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)( c ) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has not disclosed the income in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act but the additional income was shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act after search operation was conducted on the assessee. In our opinion

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1518/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 94

10A of the Act. Being so, there is no question of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue. 8. Further, regarding the levy of penalty for claim of short term capital loss by invoking the provisions of section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

u/s. 10A and was closed in the year 2007-08. It is submitted that STPI unit I & II is located in Bangalore. Whereas STPI Unit V & VI are located in Chennai. Further admittedly STPI Unit I & II performed ITeS services whereas STPI Unit V & VI are into SWD services. “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

u/s. 10A and was closed in the year 2007-08. It is submitted that STPI unit I & II is located in Bangalore. Whereas STPI Unit V & VI are located in Chennai. Further admittedly STPI Unit I & II performed ITeS services whereas STPI Unit V & VI are into SWD services. “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 15/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 102/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 12/PUN/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 100/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 101/PUN/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 13/PUN/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) will not apply retrospectively to all the cases where the events of (a) the initiation of search happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A; or (b) the filing of the return of income originally u/s 139 (1) of the Act happened prior to the amendment to the said Explanation 5A ; (c) filing