Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court 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.

405 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,515 Mumbai1,993 Ahmedabad575 Jaipur559 Chennai471 Pune413 Kolkata405 Indore401 Hyderabad356 Bangalore352 Surat346 Chandigarh232 Rajkot211 Raipur199 Amritsar169 Nagpur114 Cochin113 Patna112 Visakhapatnam103 Lucknow85 Agra83 Allahabad83 Dehradun69 Guwahati67 Jodhpur54 Cuttack53 Ranchi49 Jabalpur45 Panaji30 Varanasi15

Key Topics

Section 250243 Section 271(1)(c)96 Addition to Income66 Penalty54 Section 14749 Section 143(3)45 Section 6842 Section 14833 Section 143(2)33

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

Showing 1–20 of 405 · Page 1 of 21

...

Unexplained Cash Credit18

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

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 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

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

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

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

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated. An order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 586/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 569/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 588/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 565/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 568/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 587/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 575/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in this case. Coming to the quantum of penalty itself, I find that