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.

162 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,299Delhi845Ahmedabad379Jaipur289Chennai269Pune220Kolkata162Bangalore144Surat144Rajkot119Karnataka105Chandigarh102Indore101Hyderabad75Raipur65Amritsar53Visakhapatnam47Lucknow45Calcutta35Agra31Nagpur27Allahabad25Cuttack23Patna20Dehradun14Guwahati13Cochin11Jabalpur9Jodhpur8Ranchi7Varanasi4SC3Telangana2

Key Topics

Section 148138Section 147134Section 271(1)(c)124Section 6865Addition to Income63Section 143(3)53Penalty53Section 25046Section 234E

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)

Showing 1–20 of 162 · Page 1 of 9

...
40
Section 26338
Reopening of Assessment30
Unexplained Cash Credit13
Section 27l
Section 68

reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and assessed as such. On the basis of the additions made in the assessment order u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act, the A.O. in that case issued show- cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act which did not contain any specific charge against the assessee as to whether the assessee was guilty of having

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)

assessment not been reopened by issue of the notice u/s 148, the suppressed income, in all probability, would have remained unassessed. Even otherwise too, wilful concealment is not a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271

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)

assessment not been reopened by issue of the notice u/s 148, the suppressed income, in all probability, would have remained unassessed. Even otherwise too, wilful concealment is not a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271

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)

assessment not been reopened by issue of the notice u/s 148, the suppressed income, in all probability, would have remained unassessed. Even otherwise too, wilful concealment is not a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271

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)

assessment not been reopened by issue of the notice u/s 148, the suppressed income, in all probability, would have remained unassessed. Even otherwise too, wilful concealment is not a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment

PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment u/s 147 was legally untenable and null in the eyes of law. Accordingly we have quashed the assessment order u/s 147/143(3), therefore all consequent action is non-est in the 11 I.T.A Nos 1953/Kol/2017 & I.T.A No.1010/Kol/2018 M/s. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd eyes of law and so the levy of penalty by the AO/Ld

PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment u/s 147 was legally untenable and null in the eyes of law. Accordingly we have quashed the assessment order u/s 147/143(3), therefore all consequent action is non-est in the 11 I.T.A Nos 1953/Kol/2017 & I.T.A No.1010/Kol/2018 M/s. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd eyes of law and so the levy of penalty by the AO/Ld

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

reopening of assessment made u/s. 147 of the Act by setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 1424//Kol/2023 A.Y.2013-14 12. The ground no. 1 & 2 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 13. The first issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of ld CIT(A) confirming the addition

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

reopening of assessment made u/s. 147 of the Act by setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 1424//Kol/2023 A.Y.2013-14 12. The ground no. 1 & 2 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 13. The first issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of ld CIT(A) confirming the addition

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

reopening of assessment made u/s. 147 of the Act by setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 1424//Kol/2023 A.Y.2013-14 12. The ground no. 1 & 2 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 13. The first issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of ld CIT(A) confirming the addition

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

reopening of assessment made u/s. 147 of the Act by setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 1424//Kol/2023 A.Y.2013-14 12. The ground no. 1 & 2 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 13. The first issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of ld CIT(A) confirming the addition

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

reopening of assessments. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the said objections and overruling the same, he proceeded to complete the assessments under section 147/143(3) for both the years under consideration vide orders dated 04.03.2015 and 31.03.2015. In the assessments so made, additions of Rs.4,17,95,469/- and Rs.8,10,731/- were made by the Assessing

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment

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)

reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as per information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee company was I.T.A. No.: 1486/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balaji Metal And Sponge Pvt. Ltd. beneficiary of Rs. 15 Lakh by way of taking accommodation entry through layering of funds through accounts of other companies during the financial year

M/S. YACHIO ENGINEERING CO. LTD., [REPRESENTED BY HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS],KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX) - II, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 337/KOL/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 337/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.1,49,70,591/- was imposed. As a matter of fact it may be submitted that the assessee who provide consultancy services and assessable u/s 44D of the IT Act furnished incorrect particulars in as much as it claimed various expenses against the consultancy income which was not allowable as per the provision

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing and orders w/s. 147 read with section 143(3) have been passed on 21.12.2018 and 11.12.2018 respectively for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13. In the assessment year 2011-12 information was received from the Investigation Wing regarding unaccounted income of Rs. 3,00,000/- received