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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi435Mumbai334Jaipur146Karnataka99Ahmedabad94Bangalore83Hyderabad65Pune65Indore61Allahabad55Chennai50Kolkata41Raipur35Calcutta35Chandigarh30Lucknow26Cuttack18Nagpur15Rajkot14Cochin14Ranchi13Visakhapatnam10Surat10Guwahati9Patna9Amritsar7Dehradun4SC3Agra3Rajasthan2Jodhpur1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)32Section 143(3)29Addition to Income27Section 271A20Penalty20Section 271(1)19Undisclosed Income14Section 26313Section 250

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

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 143(2)12
Section 14812
Disallowance6

M/S SUN - KWIK APPLIANCES PVT LTD.(FORMERLY PUSHPANJALI APPLIANCES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVI,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1867/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

150% of the tax sought to be evaded which was subsequently reduced by Ld. CIT(A) in appellate stage to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. We find that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate from each other. The AO for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has to clearly specify

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50Section 50B

150% of tax sought to be evaded in the sum of Rs. 4,17,60,309/- vide his order dated 24.08.2016. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. Pr. CIT was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case

TRADELINK SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 915/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

150% levied by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Against Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ): a. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in sustaining the penalty imposed by ld. Assessing

TRADELINK SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 914/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

150% levied by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Against Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ): a. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in sustaining the penalty imposed by ld. Assessing

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 430/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a ) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 15Section 2Section 271A

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). 5 Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd, AY 2012-13 (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section

DR. S.N. GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1900/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dr.S.N.Ganguly -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-21, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acwpg8412E) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in the sum of Rs.7819/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y.2006-07 on 31.07.2006 declaring his total income of Rs.6,25,590/-. In the said return he computed short

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 223/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

150/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, addition was made for an amount of Rs.9,14,841/- on account of disallowance of expenses personal in nature of Rs.30,769/-, depreciation disallowed of Rs.36,670/-, bogus sundry creditors of Rs.1,36,795/-, other source of Rs.15,056/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,95,551/-. On appeal

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. is initiated separately.” Page 7 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. 7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee, apart from placing reliance on the finding of ld. CIT(A), further, stated that the said amount was not in nature of penalty disallowed u/s

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs.5,35,081/-. 7. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. (i) During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAVI KUMAR KHAITAN, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 156Section 271Section 271A

u/s. 271ÀAA of the Act only because entire tax along with interest was not paid before fling of income tax return or for that purpose concluding the assessment proceeding.” We note in the present case that the assessee has paid the entire tax as demanded by the AO before the penalty proceedings were concluded. Therefore, just because the assessee

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PRADEEP KUMAR KHAITAN, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1055/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 156Section 271Section 271A

u/s. 271ÀAA of the Act only because entire tax along with interest was not paid before fling of income tax return or for that purpose concluding the assessment proceeding.” We note in the present case that the assessee has paid the entire tax as demanded by the AO before the penalty proceedings were concluded. Therefore, just because the assessee

DCIT,CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PAWAN KUMAR KHAITAN, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 156Section 271Section 271A

u/s. 271ÀAA of the Act only because entire tax along with interest was not paid before fling of income tax return or for that purpose concluding the assessment proceeding.” We note in the present case that the assessee has paid the entire tax as demanded by the AO before the penalty proceedings were concluded. Therefore, just because the assessee