Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,412 results for “penalty u/s 271”

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,612 Mumbai5,986 Ahmedabad1,414 Kolkata1,412 Pune1,097 Jaipur1,063 Bangalore1,023 Chennai852 Indore796 Hyderabad648 Surat574 Chandigarh514 Amritsar325 Rajkot302 Raipur251 Cochin208 Visakhapatnam201 Lucknow187 Nagpur169 Karnataka164 Cuttack154 Agra132 Patna128 Ranchi105 Allahabad104 Dehradun102 Guwahati91 Jodhpur76 Jabalpur70 Panaji54 Calcutta39 Varanasi23 Kerala18 SC14 Telangana9 Rajasthan4 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 250230 Section 271(1)(c)99 Penalty60 Addition to Income53 Section 143(3)42 Section 14740 Section 27436 Section 234E32 Section 68

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

u/s 271 (1)(c) dt. 16.09.2016 and imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. As no penalty u/s

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Showing 1–20 of 1,412 · Page 1 of 71

...

29

Section 143(2)27

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiation

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued penalty notice u/s. 274 of the Act dated 28..08.2013. The AO finally

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 in exercise of Revisional Power u/s. 263 of IT Act, 1961. 4. That

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 in exercise of Revisional Power u/s. 263 of IT Act, 1961. 4. That

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 in exercise of Revisional Power u/s. 263 of IT Act, 1961. 4. That

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 in exercise of Revisional Power u/s. 263 of IT Act, 1961. 4. That

R. V. ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability, mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach

PUTUL JASH,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Das, ACIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted 9. In the result

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Bhattacharya, JCIT, Ld.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 why the penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act should not be imposed against the assessee

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(c) by imposing the penalty for concealment of income. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© was wrong & uncalled for. 2. For that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© was wrong & uncalled for. 2. For that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 444/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© was wrong & uncalled for. 2. For that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s. 271(1)© was wrong & uncalled for. 2. For that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 8.1.2. We find that the assessee had made a disclosure statement u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05.10.2021 and recorded the finding that it is a fit case for imposing penalty and accordingly, imposed penalty u/s

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 05.10.2021 and recorded the finding that it is a fit case for imposing penalty and accordingly, imposed penalty u/s