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.

16 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 150(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi192Mumbai173Jaipur86Allahabad54Bangalore52Hyderabad48Raipur34Ahmedabad31Indore27Pune26Chandigarh18Lucknow17Kolkata16Chennai16Nagpur15Ranchi13Rajkot10Patna9Guwahati8Visakhapatnam7Surat6Cuttack4Dehradun4Jodhpur1Amritsar1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 25011Addition to Income11Section 1488Section 143(3)8Section 143(2)8Section 50C8Section 687Section 271(1)(c)6Section 144

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (R. Kiruthiga) DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok”. 8. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income assessable in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter he prepared a detailed computation of income available on pages no. 53 to 55 of the record

6
Penalty6
Undisclosed Income6
Cash Deposit4

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

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

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. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

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. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

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. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

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. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

150 (Ker), 9) Special Leave petition dismissed by the Supreme Court (1993) 201 ITR (St.) 23 (SC); 10) CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465, 470 (Cal.) 11) Cf. Nizam Wool Agency -vs.- CIT (1992) 193 ITR 318, 320 (All). In the light of the ratio of the decisions as discussed earlier in the cases of following

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

150/- under normal provi- sions and Rs. 5,86,43,95,036/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming a refund of Rs. 46,91,630/-. During the relevant year under consideration, the company got amalgamated with 'Mount Ev- erest Mineral Water Limited' (hereinafter referred to as MEMW) pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation u/s

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

150/- under normal provi- sions and Rs. 5,86,43,95,036/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming a refund of Rs. 46,91,630/-. During the relevant year under consideration, the company got amalgamated with 'Mount Ev- erest Mineral Water Limited' (hereinafter referred to as MEMW) pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation u/s

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been initiated against the assessee on this point for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income. 5. It is found that the assessee has shown Rs. 14,00,000/- as current investments in equity as on 31.03.2012. No such is found

ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ LIFE CARE NURSING & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2038/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

150/- income assessed at Rs. 2,63,56,550/-. Page 3 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 2038/KOL/2016 I.T.A. No.: 2569/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Dreamz Life Care Nursing & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Dreamz Movies & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Facts in I.T.A. No.: 2569/KOL/2018 M/s. Dreamz Movies & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.: 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private

ITO, WARD - 3(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAMZ MOVIES & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2569/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

150/- income assessed at Rs. 2,63,56,550/-. Page 3 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 2038/KOL/2016 I.T.A. No.: 2569/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Dreamz Life Care Nursing & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Dreamz Movies & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Facts in I.T.A. No.: 2569/KOL/2018 M/s. Dreamz Movies & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.: 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 9

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, amplify or modify any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1430/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 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 28.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

150/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares Act. Thereafter, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing that one Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh was involved in providing bogus bills to various parties. That the assessee was also one of the beneficiaries of bogus

SITANGSHU DAS,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 26(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2656/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40

150/-), without considering the fact that\nthe other family members of the Proprietor was engaged in Regular Monthly\nEarning are thus the Addition of Rs. 1,05,580/- which imaginary,\nhypothetical and arbitrary.\n6) Various Expenses without Supporting Vouchers :- Rs.14,29,742/-\nThat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing\nofficer/appellate authority disallowed