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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,095Mumbai996Jaipur294Ahmedabad279Chennai223Hyderabad220Bangalore202Indore176Kolkata150Raipur145Pune141Chandigarh116Surat96Rajkot86Amritsar68Nagpur58Allahabad51Cochin46Guwahati39Lucknow38Visakhapatnam36Cuttack31Dehradun23Ranchi20Agra17Panaji16Jodhpur15Patna13Jabalpur9Varanasi8

Key Topics

Section 250317Section 14776Section 6857Addition to Income54Section 14848Section 143(3)43Section 271(1)(c)34Section 14432Penalty

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

16,174/- being 0.5% of Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 150 · Page 1 of 8

...
26
Section 143(2)17
Disallowance17
Deduction15

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

16,174/- being 0.5% of Rs.2,32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

section 275(1)(c) of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. In addition to the above, The assessee also stated that Ld. AO had issued the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 13.04.2022 re- fixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceedings for the AY 2015- 16

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

section 275(1)(c) of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. In addition to the above, The assessee also stated that Ld. AO had issued the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 13.04.2022 re- fixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceedings for the AY 2015- 16

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 586/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 584/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 588/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 572/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 574/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 573/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 562/KOL/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 563/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 564/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 565/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 568/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 583/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 567/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 569/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 582/KOL/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 566/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

section 271(1)(c). However, while imposing the penalty, it was levied @ 300%. On appeal, ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted this to 100%. The assessee has not challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and accepted that. However, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) contending therein that penalty ought to have been imposed @ 300%. 16