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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur33Hyderabad32Chennai22Bangalore16Delhi13Mumbai9Ahmedabad9Indore7Visakhapatnam4Surat4Kolkata4Rajkot3Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Lucknow2Patna2Raipur2Cochin1Panaji1Agra1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 69A5Section 271B5Section 44A5Demonetization4Section 142(1)3Cash Deposit3Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2Addition to Income2

DIPANKAR SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22,KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 428/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

demonetization as the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income. In consequence to that, assessee filed a condonation of delay petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and filed a return of income on 21.09.2019 after getting

Condonation of Delay2
Penalty2

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2305/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 142(1)

demonetization period and also during the\nFY 2016-17 was made. Accordingly, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. The\nassessee did not file any return in response to the same and he was non-compliant. A\nshow cause has also been issued but no one from the assessee's side either appear or\nmade in written

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately”. 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a written note. He submitted that the assessee has been dealing in pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products. It has achieved total sales

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period by producing cash book and other papers and documents. The assessee also failed to correlate the deposits with regard to its disclosed turnover. Therefore, the Ld. AO was of the view that the entire cash deposits made for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 amounting to ₹1,34,50,000/- (₹24,50,000/- (+) ₹1,10,00,000/-) remained