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.

26 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,194Mumbai2,014Ahmedabad542Jaipur500Bangalore372Chennai334Kolkata315Pune272Hyderabad252Indore225Chandigarh167Surat152Raipur142Karnataka134Rajkot99Amritsar88Visakhapatnam64Allahabad55Cochin50Lucknow43Nagpur43Agra41Calcutta35Dehradun33Cuttack26Patna22Guwahati20Panaji16Kerala14Jabalpur12SC12Ranchi11Varanasi9Jodhpur9Telangana5Rajasthan3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)27Section 143(3)25Section 153D24Addition to Income24Section 142(1)20Section 270A18Section 271A16Penalty16Section 271

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

11
Disallowance10
Section 153A9
Transfer Pricing5
18 Sept 2024
AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

SAMBIT RESORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 429/CTK/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G.Naik/S.K.Sarangi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Suvendu Dutta, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

25,000/-. 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made investment of Rs.68,20,000/- for purchase of landed property at Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Out of the total payment of Rs.68,20,000/-, Rs.22,45,000/- invested during the relevant previous year was found to be unexplained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 27l(l)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(l)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 260/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notices along with the draft assessment order. Since the facts are not identical to the facts of the case laws relied on by the assessee, moreover, the AO has to pass draft assessment order as per provision and was accordingly passed by him. The accompanying notices along with the draft assessment order are only procedural mistakes, it cannot tantamount

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 262/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notices along with the draft assessment order. Since the facts are not identical to the facts of the case laws relied on by the assessee, moreover, the AO has to pass draft assessment order as per provision and was accordingly passed by him. The accompanying notices along with the draft assessment order are only procedural mistakes, it cannot tantamount

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 261/CTK/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notices along with the draft assessment order. Since the facts are not identical to the facts of the case laws relied on by the assessee, moreover, the AO has to pass draft assessment order as per provision and was accordingly passed by him. The accompanying notices along with the draft assessment order are only procedural mistakes, it cannot tantamount

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 263/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notices along with the draft assessment order. Since the facts are not identical to the facts of the case laws relied on by the assessee, moreover, the AO has to pass draft assessment order as per provision and was accordingly passed by him. The accompanying notices along with the draft assessment order are only procedural mistakes, it cannot tantamount

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

penalty notices along with the draft assessment order. Since the facts are not identical to the facts of the case laws relied on by the assessee, moreover, the AO has to pass draft assessment order as per provision and was accordingly passed by him. The accompanying notices along with the draft assessment order are only procedural mistakes, it cannot tantamount

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 175/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 54Section 69A

25-July-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 08.01.2025, I.T.A. No.: 175/CTK/2025 Assessment

RANJAN KUMAR NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO,JEYPORE WARD,, JEYPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ranjan Kumar Nath, Nath, Rath Vs. Ito, Jeypore Ward, Sharma Colony, Po/Dist: Jeypore Koraput. Pan/Gir No.Aibpn 4939 N Aibpn 4939 N (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr Date Of Hearing : Date Of Hearing : 24/07/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : Date Of Pronouncement : 25 /07/ 2019 / 2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 274

25 /07/ 2019 / 2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 1, Bhubaneswar

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/CTK/2020[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 228/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 227/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis