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.

7 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 197clear

Sorted by relevance

Raipur95Delhi89Bangalore54Mumbai42Chennai28Chandigarh25Indore15Jaipur14Rajkot11Lucknow10Hyderabad10Kolkata7Ahmedabad7Cuttack6Pune6Nagpur6Surat5Allahabad5Patna4Amritsar4Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 2507Section 143(3)6Section 1485Addition to Income5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1444Cash Deposit4Penalty4Undisclosed Income

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

4
Section 143(2)2
Section 80I2
Section 144C(13)2
ITA 487/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
11 Dec 2023
AY 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 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

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

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also initiated. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee had arranged pre- arranged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 63,76,486/- through the entry operators who facilitates such accommodation entry on receipt of commission only. As reported by the Investigation Directorate, the entry operators charge a commission

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.”\n\nFacts of the case as stated in the order