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.

59 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(37)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai593Delhi569Jaipur178Ahmedabad161Chennai123Raipur117Hyderabad116Bangalore114Chandigarh64Kolkata59Rajkot58Indore55Pune53Allahabad45Surat40Amritsar36Lucknow27Visakhapatnam16Nagpur15Patna12Guwahati11Panaji8Cuttack7Ranchi4Cochin4Jodhpur3Jabalpur2Agra1Dehradun1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)37Section 25035Addition to Income29Section 271(1)(c)26Section 6825Section 14720Section 14817Section 14A17Penalty

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

37,56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 133(6)16
Deduction14
Disallowance10
ITA 441/KOL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

37,56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

37,17,017/- minus Rs. 10,03,438/-) vide order u/s 251/143(3) of the Act dated 31.05.2018. Penalty proceeding has been initiated against the assessee on account of concealment amount of income of Rs. 27,13,534/-. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 487/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 490/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 488/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 489/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

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

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37

ARUN KUMAR BOSE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 465/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.465/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arun Kumar Bose................................................................................…..…Appellant 9, Rajani Kant Sarani, Hakimpara, Siliguri. [Pan: Ahvpb8055A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri...…..…...........................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Adv. & S. Mandal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 9Th, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 58 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Appellant Is A Senior Citizen & Was Effected By Covid & Therefore, Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

section 251(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the A.O for action in terms of impugned order dated 23rd November 2021. 3. For that appellant craves leave to add, alter, take further grounds of appeal, if necessary at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case

RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1149/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Kumar Agarwal Huf Asst. Cit, Circle 37, Kolkata, 15, Ganagdhar Babu 3, Govt. Place, Lane, Kolkata – 700001, Vs Eden House, Bow Bazar, West Bengal Kolkata – 700012, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahhr3501E Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. S. Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 91Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

37, Kolkata, 15, Ganagdhar Babu 3, Govt. Place, Lane, Kolkata – 700001, Vs Eden House, Bow Bazar, West Bengal Kolkata – 700012, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAHHR3501E Present for: Appellant by : Shri S. S. Gupta, FCA Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 1998/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 2646/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

ASIT KUMAR DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271(1)Section 274Section 80DSection 80E

10,37,040/-. Thereafter revised the return of income was filed on 23.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,96,170/- after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80DDB of the Act and u/s

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal