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.

18 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 158clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi210Mumbai209Ahmedabad58Jaipur54Pune46Raipur43Chennai39Bangalore38Allahabad24Chandigarh23Hyderabad21Kolkata18Indore13Ranchi13Cochin12Nagpur10Agra8Lucknow8Surat8Jodhpur7Patna6Dehradun5Rajkot4Jabalpur3Amritsar3Panaji2Guwahati1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)22Section 25014Section 143(3)12Section 6811Double Taxation/DTAA10Deduction10Addition to Income9Section 50C8Section 201

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2587/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

7
TDS7
Penalty6
Disallowance5
ITA 2586/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

M/S. RUPASI BANGLA ARGO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,MIDNAPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 38(1), MIDNAPUR, MIDNAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.630/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Vs. M/S. Rupasi Bangla Argo Income Tax Officer, Ward-38(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Midnapur Duki, Village & P.O. Duki, Dist. Paschim Midnapore- 721253. (Pan: Aaecr8402L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

158/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the addition made in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is concerned, assessee did not prefer any appeal. However, against the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and in Form

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. With regard to the deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed in the return of income u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, the ld. AR submits that deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property

AKRAM HOSSAIN MULLICK,HOWRAH vs. ACIT,CIR-47,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in this respect. In the penalty proceedings, assessee submitted his explanations. However, Ld. AO completed the same by imposing penalty @ 100% amounting to Rs.4,49,908/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), a detailed explanation was furnished whereby

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

158 days. Therefore, it has been requested to condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice. Considering the application for I.T.A. No.: 1714/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 PHPL Properties Pvt. Ltd. condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing

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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 394/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 397/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

271 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. ……………………………………….. Moreover, it is well-settled that circulars can bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee..." 12 I.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 397, 398 & 399/Kol/2023 Assessment Year