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.

193 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,556Mumbai1,407Ahmedabad404Jaipur345Bangalore230Indore202Kolkata193Pune170Surat167Hyderabad164Chennai156Raipur135Karnataka126Chandigarh109Rajkot85Amritsar63Lucknow61Allahabad46Cochin45Agra42Visakhapatnam40Nagpur40Calcutta35Cuttack26Panaji21Guwahati20Jodhpur15Kerala15Dehradun14SC9Patna9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Ranchi7Telangana5Rajasthan4

Key Topics

Section 250370Section 271(1)(c)59Addition to Income49Section 6847Section 143(3)46Section 14745Penalty35Section 14832Section 274

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act or from the assessment order. In response to this, the Learned DR relied on the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Act which is introduced with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989. He relied on various case laws in support of his various contentions stated supra

Showing 1–20 of 193 · Page 1 of 10

...
21
Section 271A19
Unexplained Cash Credit15
Cash Deposit11

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

2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s

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

2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated 29.10.2018 and passed a penalty order u/s

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S/ ARYAN MINNING & TRADING CORPORATION LTD, KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey & Sh. A.L.Sainidcit, M/S. Aryan Mining & Central Circle-2(2), Aayakar V Trading Corporation Ltd., P-1, Hide Lane, 8Th Floor, Bhawan, Poorva, 110 S Shantipally, Kolkata-700073. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aadca7247B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tulsyan, Fca & Ms. Sikha Agarwal, Aca 27.12.2018 Date Of Hearing 01.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

34,83,03,850/- after making certain additions. Thereafter, penalty proceedings was initiated on the disclosed amount of Rs.59,09,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted such offering of Rs. 59,09,00,000/- was on account of sub grade fines. In the course of search an internal

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs.5,35,081/-. 7. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. (i) During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

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

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

34,610/- as per his return with the seized cash of Rs. 36,00,000/- vide his letter dated 26.09.2017. The ld. AO although accepted the return filed by the assessee and assessed the total income at Rs. 83,02,410/- initiated a penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the Act and subsequently passed an order dated 27.06.2018 u/s 271AAB

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

2. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the above penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without considering the basic fact that the total income for the A.Y. 2010-11 declared in the valid return was Rs. 10,15,47,560/- whereas the total income

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

2. Flat No.502, Cash Rs.10,34,690/- Rs.10,00,000/- Premlata 5th Floor, 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kol-17 3. Janki Sadan, Cash Rs.5,05,600/- Rs.5,00,000/- Anchal Road, New Jewellery SKJ/16 to 20, SKJ/16 to 20, Borrough Office, SKJ/24,SKJ/28 to SKJ/24,SKJ/28 to Siliguri 30(Rs/.6,00,469/) 30 (Rs.6,00,469/-) Hence, no assets found

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1183/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

2. Flat No.502, Cash Rs.10,34,690/- Rs.10,00,000/- Premlata 5th Floor, 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kol-17 3. Janki Sadan, Cash Rs.5,05,600/- Rs.5,00,000/- Anchal Road, New Jewellery SKJ/16 to 20, SKJ/16 to 20, Borrough Office, SKJ/24,SKJ/28 to SKJ/24,SKJ/28 to Siliguri 30(Rs/.6,00,469/) 30 (Rs.6,00,469/-) Hence, no assets found

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1869/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

34,60,000.00 was invested in the AY 2007-08. The assessee during the course of search proceedings u/s 132A of the Act has admitted the undisclosed investment and offered the same to tax in the respective years as stated above. Accordingly, AO further issued notice as Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

u/s. 271 AAA for the AYs under consideration in the case of respective asessees. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed. “ b) Decision of co-ordinate bench of Nagpur Tribunal in the case of Concrete Developers vs ACIT reported in (2013) 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib.) “Section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

VAIBHAV TULSYAN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 736/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

2 1,08,34,500/- was found. The amount of cash found has been owned up by the assessee and the same has been considered as application of funds out of his income disclosed u/s 132(4). During the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, an inventory of 12 items of jewellery

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

2. Shri Mahendra Singh Vs. ITO, ITA No. 81/K/2013, AY 2006-07 dated 10.10.2014, 3. Munnalal R. Halwai Vs. ITO, ITA No.253/PNJ/2013, AY 2006-07 dated 23.01.2015; 4. Sri Chandra Prakash Bubna Vs. ITO, ITA No.289/K/2012, AY 2005-06 dated 21.05.2015, 5. M/s. Unipack Air Express (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.421/K/2012, AY 1996- 97 dated 30.07.2014 & 6. DCIT

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

34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such

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

34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 587/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 250

34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such

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

34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such

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

34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such