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.

27 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 191clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi374Mumbai226Karnataka100Chennai69Surat48Jaipur41Raipur36Bangalore32Indore31Kolkata27Pune22Hyderabad17Nagpur17Lucknow16Ahmedabad14Rajkot13Chandigarh13Cuttack9Amritsar9Panaji8Dehradun7Guwahati6Allahabad6Agra3Rajasthan2Ranchi2Cochin1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)41Section 27424Addition to Income20Section 4018Section 143(3)17Section 14713Section 143(2)13Section 14812Section 92C

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is to penalize the assessee for concealing particulars of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It is of no consequence whether the income returned was a profit or loss. Therefore, even if there is loss return and no tax was leviable even after disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was still leviable. For this

BIJAY KUMAR SHAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

12
Penalty10
Disallowance10
Reassessment4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80D

191/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before

SRINATH BASU ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-56(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 306/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Srinath Basu Income Tax Officer, Ward-56(4), Vs Kolkata 26/2, Nayan Chand Dutta Street Kolkata - 700006 [Pan: Aeepb7086F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel At The Outset Submits That Penalty Order Is Bad In Law As The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Penalty Of Rs.1,38,748/- Was Levied Without Specifying The Exact Limb Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Penalty Notice Issued U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, Dated 19Th March, 2014 (Placed On Record), Submitted That The Notice Was Issued Mechanically Stating That Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income. In Other Words, The Notice Was Issued For Both The Limbs Without Strike Off Irrelevant Limb & Specifying The Charge For Which

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, A/R & Shri Tapas Kr. Majumdar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued. 4. We observe that an identical issue came up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan I.T.A. No. 306/Kol/2023

SRI SACHINADRA NATH KAYAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Ito Warrd-23(1), बनाम Vill. Makhla-2, P.O. & Aayakar Bhawan, / V/S. P.S. Uttarpara, Khadinamore, Dist.Hooghly Pin 712247 Chinsurah, Hooghly [Pan No.Afepk 7726 E] Pin-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.P. Datta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.07.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.04.2013. Shri S.P. Datta, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Saurbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue.

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ₹10,98,667/- to the extent of 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the LTCG income was not offered to tax due to lack of knowledge of income tax and amount of capital

SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 576/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271 (1)( c) should be discernible either from the assessment order or the penalty notice which would constitute the basis of initiating the penalty proceedings. The explanation given by the assessee during the assessment proceeding was held to be not bona fide and acceptable has been mentioned clearly in the assessment order itself. In the penalty proceedings

SUJJAL KUMAR SAHA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income are mentioned but one of the element not applicable to the assessee has not been struck off. In these given condition, both the sides have referred and relied on the judicial precedents. However, in view of judgment

SRI SUKHENDU KUMAR DAS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 55(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 966/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

191) would not have been disclosed by assessee. Moreover, even in the return filed u/s. 148 assessee has not disclosed the amount of FD interest of Rs.62,645/-. Hence, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act in respect 2 Sukhendu Kumar Das, AY 2012-13 of the entire amount of Rs. 9,90,207/- (Rs.9

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK CONSTRUCTION CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 179/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

section of 271 (1)( c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income and secondly the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, these two conditions are found missing. Additions made by the AO and a part of it confirmed by the CIT(A) are all based on estimates where nothing

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is cancelled

ITA 216/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 216/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Radheshyam Agarwal...............................……………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Addpa 1746 M] Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: None Shri S. Halder, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Under the circumstances, we dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative. The assessee had sold property and derived income from capital gain

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1051/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 599/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 617/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

191 held as under:- “The question that remains to be decided now is whether the subject matter of transfer was the asset belonging to the transferor/donors themselves. There is enough material on record which goes to show that there were various credits in the bank accounts of the donors, prior to the transaction of gifts, which undisputedly belonging

ONE STOP COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

191 pages indicating the financials of the assessee company and the replies given by various share applicants to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee company is engaged in investment and finance activities and the share capital and share premium received from various share applicants are duly

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 413/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 194JSection 200Section 234BSection 40

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40 a)(ia1 as they' existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

191) wherein the Apex Court had held as follows: "Both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under- assessment has resulted from nondisclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to start proceedings after

PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Premier Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Pan: Aadcp 8876D Kolkata Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

191) wherein the Apex Court had held as follows: "Both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under- assessment has resulted from nondisclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to start proceedings after