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.

79 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi907Mumbai866Ahmedabad295Bangalore135Chennai90Pune90Jaipur88Kolkata79Chandigarh52Raipur50Hyderabad43Indore38Surat32Visakhapatnam26Amritsar24Lucknow23Rajkot11Nagpur10Jodhpur8Cochin8Dehradun8Agra7Guwahati6Ranchi5Karnataka4SC4Patna3Panaji3Allahabad3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)67Section 143(3)61Section 27449Depreciation41Section 115J40Penalty36Addition to Income31Deduction29Disallowance26Section 271(1)

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

depreciation claimed by assessee on land and added to the total income of assessee. However, AO in his assessment proceedings initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 80I21
Section 26319

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). . 2. The AO noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in column 18 of Form 3CD of TAR that the opening WDV (written down value) of intangible asset as Rs. 32,12,50,000/- and the assessee had claimed

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80J

u/s. 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings us/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms.’ 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section 115JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

depreciation was increased by Rs. 1,32,463.65 (a revised chart of fixed assets was also submitted. As a whole, the net effect of reconciliation of the Income & Expenditure account was an enhancement of net profit by Rs. 19, 58,731.81. 1.2 Reconciliation of the Income & expenditure account showed that If the assessee concealed his income and also filed inaccurate

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)

depreciation of Rs. 9,04,543/- from M/s D.K. Enterprises. M/s D.K.Enterprises was claimed to be the proprietary concern of Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF). The assessee in effect admitted additional income of Rs. 9,04,543/- in the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1862/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, thereafter, imposed the impugned penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1863/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, thereafter, imposed the impugned penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

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

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

depreciation of Rs. 22,28,085/-, the assessee furnished a loss return of Rs. 4,71,01,220/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A / 143(3) of the Act on 11.5.2011 by treating the share trading loss as speculation loss in terms of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act and after making minor disallowances and determining total income

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARBANSLAL MALHOTRA & SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: The A.O. 04. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That It Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 27L(L)(C) Of The Act. 05. That The Department Craves Leave To Add, Modify Or Alter Any Of The Above Ground(S) Of Appeal And/Or Adduce Additional Evidence At The Time Of Hearing Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri V.N Purohit, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 27l(1)

depreciation is concerned, I am of the opinion that the penalty u/s. 271(1) ( c) cannot be levied on the same

M/S GENERAL POLYTEX PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 166/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 166/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Limited,...........Appellant 0/2171-72, Malviniwadi, Sonifalia, Bhagatalav, Gujarat-395003 [Pan: Aaccb5335L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri M.K. Patwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 32

depreciation claimed of Rs.4.60.03,142/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am also satisfied with the fact that this is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceeding u/s. 271

M/S MAA ENGINEERING,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation claimed by the assessee and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s. 271

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1555/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation and insurance expenses to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

depreciation. Making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271( 1) ( c) of the Act.” 5.1.2. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H), wherein it has been held that

MD. SHAMSAD ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2124/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2124/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Md. Shamsad Alam, Vs. The Ito, Ward-53(1), (Proprietor Of : M/S 2, Gariahat Road (S) M.S.Drum Suppliers), Kolkata-700068 25/6/F, Am Ghosh Road, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (S), Kolkata-700137 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpa 5230 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.49/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward53(1)/Kol/12-13, Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27/12/2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,93,600/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The 2 Md. Shamsad Alam

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)

depreciation on Tanker, Rs.1,33,737/-on account of discrepancies in Loan & Advances, Rs.2,87,105/-on account of interest paid for Tanker purchase, Rs.1,23,876/-on account of Tanker hire charges, and Rs.51,650/- on account of car maintenance. While making the assessment, the AO observed that assessee has claimed Car maintenance expenses whereas there was no motor

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PAINTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1293/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatramani, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Chaturvedi, FCA
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c ) of the I.T. Act. 1961. Facts of the case is that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 223/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

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

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

depreciation disallowed of Rs.36,670/-, bogus sundry creditors of Rs.1,36,795/-, other source of Rs.15,056/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,95,551/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Subsequently, the assessee was served notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 31.12.2007. Thereafter considering the assessee’s submission, the AO imposed penalty

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied upon assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWDHURY ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 61(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2420/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied upon assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order

SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai on behalf of Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied upon assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order