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.

181 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,168Mumbai1,079Jaipur342Ahmedabad301Chennai228Hyderabad223Bangalore217Kolkata181Indore174Raipur157Pune152Surat135Chandigarh119Rajkot107Amritsar72Nagpur72Allahabad51Lucknow47Visakhapatnam46Cochin45Guwahati43Patna32Cuttack31Ranchi22Dehradun20Agra17Panaji17Jodhpur15Jabalpur10Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 250314Section 271(1)(c)80Section 14762Section 14850Addition to Income50Section 143(3)35Penalty29Section 6828Section 263

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

2 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for not considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed

Showing 1–20 of 181 · Page 1 of 10

...
25
Section 143(2)23
Deduction13
Disallowance12

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

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

2 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for not considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee to have concealed

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended if the show- cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee." This decision has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA Emerald

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended if the show- cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee." This decision has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA Emerald

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended if the show- cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee." This decision has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA Emerald

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section 147 than the actual income disclosed in original return, then it is an automatic process of enhancement of tax liability as there is a big difference between income shown in original return and the income which has been disclosed in 148 notice. This difference of tax liability should

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section 147 than the actual income disclosed in original return, then it is an automatic process of enhancement of tax liability as there is a big difference between income shown in original return and the income which has been disclosed in 148 notice. This difference of tax liability should

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section 147 than the actual income disclosed in original return, then it is an automatic process of enhancement of tax liability as there is a big difference between income shown in original return and the income which has been disclosed in 148 notice. This difference of tax liability should

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section 147 than the actual income disclosed in original return, then it is an automatic process of enhancement of tax liability as there is a big difference between income shown in original return and the income which has been disclosed in 148 notice. This difference of tax liability should

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. 6. Considering the above discussion Ground No 1 and 2 of the appeal one dismissed. Since no change for alteration in the grounds are made during proceedings therefore, Ground No. 3 is dismissed as it need no adjudication.” 8. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable

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. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

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. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

Penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income- tax Act, 1961 3. You are required to submit your reply online electronically in 'e-Proceeding facility through your account in e-filing website (www.incornetax.gov.in) by the midnight (23:59 hours) of 22/09/2021, 4. In case reply is not submitted, the order shall be passed without the benefit

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

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

15. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these cases, penalty was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under 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

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

15. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these cases, penalty was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under 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

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 585/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 250

15. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these cases, penalty was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under 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

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

15. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these cases, penalty was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under 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

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

15. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these cases, penalty was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under 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