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.

468 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,666Delhi3,206Ahmedabad881Bangalore577Jaipur476Chennai474Kolkata468Pune397Indore268Hyderabad267Surat263Chandigarh205Rajkot112Raipur111Nagpur77Amritsar74Visakhapatnam69Lucknow64Cochin62Cuttack62Allahabad49Calcutta39Guwahati38Agra33Ranchi31Karnataka30Panaji27SC22Jabalpur18Jodhpur17Telangana16Varanasi16Dehradun16Patna13Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 250291Section 271(1)(c)59Addition to Income55Section 143(3)42Disallowance37Section 6835Section 14A34Section 153A31Penalty30Deduction

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

section 271(1B) of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs Union of India reported in 317 IR 107 (Del). In this judgement, the relevant operative portions are reproduced herein below:- “6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction

Showing 1–20 of 468 · Page 1 of 24

...
21
Section 14719
Section 132(4)18

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271 (1)(c) . ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 The assessee had claimed certain deductions which were disallowed

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made at the time of filing the return of income or in any event before conclusion of the assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court however in the case of ACIT vs M/s. Gebilal Kanhaialal

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made at the time of filing the return of income or in any event before conclusion of the assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court however in the case of ACIT vs M/s. Gebilal Kanhaialal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is defective in as much as the ld AO had not struck off the relevant portion in the show cause notice as to whether the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is defective in as much as the ld AO had not struck off the relevant portion in the show cause notice as to whether the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

PRITHI PAUL SINGH SETHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1825/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported lin 317 ITR 107 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT reported

BASIL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1843/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported lin 317 ITR 107 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT reported

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

Section 271(1)( (c) for levy of penalty. The Learned AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision has considered the effect of Sec.271(1B) of the Act, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms.Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1244/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

M/S CORONATION REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowing its claim for long-term capital gain arising from the sale of shares of Jackson Investment Limited by treating the same as bogus. Penalty proceedings under section 271

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Disallowance of sale of Rs.19,79,300/- Teak Trees (iii) Addition on account of Rs. 30,600/- income from house property Penalty proceedings under section 271

VAMSHI CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1822/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported lin 317 ITR 107 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT reported

APPELINE COSMETICS & TOILETRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1827/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA and Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, ACIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported lin 317 ITR 107 I.T.A. No. 1827 to 1829/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004, 2004-05 & 2006-07 Page 6 of 10 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme

NIXCIL PHARMACEUTICALS SPECIALITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1847/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA and Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, ACIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported in 317 ITR 107 I.T.A.Nos.1847 to 1850/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2004-2005 to 2007-08 Page 6 of 10 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

RUCHIKA FINVEST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 98/KOL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA and Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, ACIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1B) of the Act as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta –vs.- Union of India reported lin 317 ITR 107 I.T.A.Nos.98 to 101/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 to 2006-07 Page 6 of 10 (Del.) and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 271(1B) of the Act, which reads as under: “271(1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction on account of retention money for all the five years under consideration, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why penalty under section 271