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.

73 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi590Mumbai412Chennai138Jaipur130Karnataka121Ahmedabad98Bangalore95Kolkata73Pune54Chandigarh51Indore46Raipur46Surat40Calcutta35Hyderabad32Visakhapatnam27Allahabad20Lucknow19Agra16Nagpur16Rajkot11Amritsar10Dehradun7Cochin6Cuttack6Jabalpur5Guwahati5SC3Jodhpur3Ranchi2Telangana2Rajasthan1Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 143(3)58Section 271(1)(c)55Section 200A48Section 115J41Section 15439Section 271(1)31Deduction30Penalty29Addition to Income

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)

u/s 154 of the Act by the Learned CIT(A). Hence the appeals filed by the assessee for the Asst Years 2001-02 ; 2002-03 & 2003-04 are dismissed as infructuous. 8.2. It is relevant to reproduce Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act at this juncture :- “Where in the course of a [ search initiated under section

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

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

29
TDS22
Section 132(4)21

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

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

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

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

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

154 on 29.12.2011 and assessed the total income at Rs.38,78,480/- . Thus, the AO had made addition of Rs.23 lakhs to the returned Income. In the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is observed that during the course of penalty proceedings, It was contended before the AO that

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

154 of the Act dated 16.05.2007 rectifying the total income at Rs.2,20,490/- instead of Rs.3,26,230/- as computed vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against following disallowances made vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act: (i) Disallowance u/s

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1244/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

154 dated 08.03.2010 was filed in respect and the assessee also paid the balance tax of Rs.24,93,675/- on 26.02.2010. Copy of the rectification petition dated 08.03.2010 along with the copy of the challan is produced. Therefore, as per the assessee there is no demand before passing of the penalty order, hence penalty U/s 271AAA may not be levied

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

154 dated 08.03.2010 was filed in respect and the assessee also paid the balance tax of Rs.24,93,675/- on 26.02.2010. Copy of the rectification petition dated 08.03.2010 along with the copy of the challan is produced. Therefore, as per the assessee there is no demand before passing of the penalty order, hence penalty U/s 271AAA may not be levied

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

section 50B, which is neither an act of concealment of income nor of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income 5. The action of the Pr. CIT in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of a hearing is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice 6. On the facts

JAGDAMBA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 154.” 2. The only issue is as to whether the action of the AO rejecting the petition u/s. 154 of the Act was erroneous or not and whether the observation made by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee should have preferred an appeal against the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income

DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

penalty on account of Explanation -5 to Section 271(1) when the assessee’s case does not come under the purview of the exceptions provided therein. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the cae the Ld. CIT(A) , Central-III, Kolkata has erred in law as well as facts in allowing assessee’s rectification application moved u/s 154

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

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

U/s 139(1) Ler.Dt 153A 153A (Rs.) 20/10/06 (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,59,126/- 1,91,154/- ------ 8,50,280/- 2003-04 8,57,623/- 2,35,877/- 3,61,600/- 14,55,100/- 2004-05 8,52,094/- 4,09,356/- 14,65,904/- 22,27,350/- 2005-06 10,50,831/0-

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

154,000 AMRIT HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED 27,388,000 27,388,000 AMRICON AGROVET PRIVATE LIMITED 15,755,000 15,755,000 SUB-TOTAL 314,729,266 ADD: ADDITIONAL SUM SUO MOTO OFFERED 35,270,734 GRAND TOTAL 350,000,000 8.2. The ld. CIT(A) has at page 11 & 12 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

154,000 AMRIT HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED 27,388,000 27,388,000 AMRICON AGROVET PRIVATE LIMITED 15,755,000 15,755,000 SUB-TOTAL 314,729,266 ADD: ADDITIONAL SUM SUO MOTO OFFERED 35,270,734 GRAND TOTAL 350,000,000 8.2. The ld. CIT(A) has at page 11 & 12 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) ( C ) of the Act, against the order passed by the AO under section 154 of the Act, and against the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Since all these appeals relate to the same assessee and common identical issues are involved therefore these are heard together and a consolidated order

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1832/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) ( C ) of the Act, against the order passed by the AO under section 154 of the Act, and against the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Since all these appeals relate to the same assessee and common identical issues are involved therefore these are heard together and a consolidated order

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1) ( C ) of the Act, against the order passed by the AO under section 154 of the Act, and against the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Since all these appeals relate to the same assessee and common identical issues are involved therefore these are heard together and a consolidated order

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

Penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act is therefore innposable as regards concealment amounting to Rs. 19,58,731.81. 6. Regarding the second point of concealment of income from house property. the explanation forwarded is that the addition made in the assessment was not lawful because the assessee followed cash basis accounting, It was stated that the assessee would

SUKHBIR SINGH DHUPIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

section 94(7) of the Act. The taxable income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 1,34,70,990/- on 21.12.2006 after making disallowance u/s 94(7) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 25,22,098/-. Later 2 Sukhbir Singh Dhupia A.Yr.2004-05 the assessment was subject to rectification proceedings u/s 154 dated

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub- section