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.

182 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 139clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi868Mumbai763Jaipur405Chennai270Bangalore246Ahmedabad235Indore198Kolkata182Pune143Hyderabad138Karnataka133Surat100Chandigarh94Amritsar64Rajkot52Raipur51Cuttack45Visakhapatnam38Lucknow36Calcutta35Cochin34Nagpur32Allahabad32Guwahati24Patna24Panaji15Dehradun10Ranchi9Jabalpur7Jodhpur6Agra4SC3Rajasthan1Gauhati1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)186Section 153A94Penalty75Addition to Income69Section 271A67Section 27458Section 132(4)57Section 143(3)51Section 139(1)

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal; - the assessee had filed the returns u/s 153C and u/s 139

Showing 1–20 of 182 · Page 1 of 10

...
48
Section 13241
Search & Seizure29
Undisclosed Income25

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

139 of the Act, as the I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 12 of 14 Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act and the penalty

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Bhattacharya, JCIT, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

139 and accordingly, he imposed penalty of Rs.3,55,422 & Rs.2,29,779/- for both the assessment years under consideration imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1) ( c) for concealment of particulars of income. Relevant findings of the AO for imposition of penalty are reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- Besides the above the A.O. in the assessment order

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A, if any. 14. Further

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 444/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A, if any. 14. Further

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

section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating as under: Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given u/s.22

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

section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating as under: Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given u/s.22

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

section 271(1)(c), the Ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by stating as under: Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given u/s.22

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

139(1) of the Act by the assessee, or for failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act etc. Thus, such non-est notice cannot

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable in the case of the assessee because the assessee had not furnished any bona fide explanation in the penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable in the case of the assessee because the assessee had not furnished any bona fide explanation in the penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2333/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2334/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

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)

139 by him neither during the course of penalty proceedings before the A.O. nor during the appeal proceedings AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. except for stating that it was due to a bona fide mistake on his part without substantiating the assertion in any manner. The appellant's contention that he had suo moto revised the return declaring

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)

139 by him neither during the course of penalty proceedings before the A.O. nor during the appeal proceedings AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. except for stating that it was due to a bona fide mistake on his part without substantiating the assertion in any manner. The appellant's contention that he had suo moto revised the return declaring