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.

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 132Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi190Mumbai180Jaipur129Hyderabad59Chennai44Bangalore31Pune30Chandigarh26Ahmedabad26Allahabad23Agra16Rajkot16Indore12Guwahati12Surat11Raipur11Lucknow11Nagpur8Cuttack8Visakhapatnam8SC3Kolkata3Amritsar3Karnataka2Ranchi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153C11Section 271(1)(c)10Section 153A5Section 234A5Penalty3Section 271A2Section 1322Section 132(4)2Section 271(1)

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 153CSection 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(11)(c)Section 271A

132A. Whereas, the heading of section 153C is "Assessment of income of any other person" Similarly, the ITA No.318/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Abhishek Goyal vs. ACIT, CC-XII Kol. Page 4 heading of section 271AAA of the Act Is "Penalty where search has been initiated" The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 271AAA reads as under:- The Assessing Officer

2
Search & Seizure2
Addition to Income2
Undisclosed Income2

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1869/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 132A of the Act has admitted the undisclosed investment and offered the same to tax in the respective years as stated above. Accordingly, AO further issued notice as Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty

NITIN KUMAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1457/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1457/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nitin Kumar -Vs- Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata [Pan: Amupk 9557 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

132A of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 14.07.2011 before the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV(1), Kolkata agreed to offer the seized cash as his undisclosed income towards the unexplained creditors and other liabilities appearing in his books for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee also pleaded that the same may be treated as disclosure of income u/s