BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

68 results for “capital gains”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai561Delhi463Jaipur162Ahmedabad141Chennai140Hyderabad103Bangalore85Indore71Kolkata68Pune59Raipur54Surat45Lucknow41Chandigarh40Visakhapatnam36Nagpur34Guwahati25Ranchi24Rajkot24Patna14Dehradun14Agra12Amritsar11Cuttack10Cochin7Jodhpur6Allahabad5Jabalpur3Panaji3Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)78Addition to Income45Section 25040Section 143(3)36Penalty28Section 14826Section 14725Section 10(38)21Section 6820Section 14A

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

271(1)(c) of the 1.T. Act is being initiated separately. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, total taxable income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.2,375,350/- Computation of Total Income is made as below: Income from Other Sources (as per return

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

19
Deduction19
Disallowance13

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

capital gain which was claimed as exempt income for taxation, amounting to Rs.6,70,136/- to avoid litigation and buy peace with the Tax Department. Accordingly, Ld. AO completed the assessment, considering the voluntary offering made by the assessee which was added to the total income of the assessee as income from other sources. 3.1. While doing

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not correct and liable to be deleted. On this context, the Ld. AR stated that the Ld. AO nowhere demonstrate as to 2 I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2024 Jitendra Kumar Jain (HUF) how the long term capital gain

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, Office staff on behalf of Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

ORIENTAL RELAYS LLP (SUCCESSOR TO ORIENTAL RELAYS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018, was passed by making an Oriental Relays LLP ; A.Y. 2016-17 addition of ₹84,70,915/- as Long-Term Capital Gain

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

c) read with section 32 of the Act, therefore the provi- sions of section 50C would not be applicable in this case. It has to be understood that this is not a stand that the appellant had taken before the AO and is new at this juncture and to be treated as an additional ground (though alternate in nature

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

c) read with section 32 of the Act, therefore the provi- sions of section 50C would not be applicable in this case. It has to be understood that this is not a stand that the appellant had taken before the AO and is new at this juncture and to be treated as an additional ground (though alternate in nature

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence, i.e. (a) Trading of shares was done through broker

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well as the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction of u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Page

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains. Though the additions have been made/confirmed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities in this case, however, to establish the allegation of concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to invoke penal provisions of section 271(1)(c

PRAMOD KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains. Though the additions have been made/confirmed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities in this case, however, to establish the allegation of concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to invoke penal provisions of section 271(1)(c

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

MUKLESUR RAHAMAN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-61, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Subash Agarwal & Income Tax, Circle 61, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Kolkata. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Atpps0434C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakeshb Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

capital gain and addition made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so imposed. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence, i.e. (a) Trading of shares was done through broker

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1613/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

c) and (d), shall be applicable at the rate of fifteen per cent. of such income-tax:" 7. All the beneficiaries are individuals and it is well-settled that the status of a trust in which all the beneficiaries are individuals would be that of an individual for the purpose of taxation. 8. We rely on the following judicial pronouncements

TANIMA ROY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

271(1)(c). 6. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of the revenue authorities raised two-fold submissions. In his first-fold of contention, he submitted that in the show-cause notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, whose