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.

83 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 200(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi696Mumbai519Chennai156Ahmedabad140Jaipur138Bangalore137Karnataka125Pune89Kolkata83Hyderabad63Raipur62Indore53Surat50Chandigarh45Allahabad44Calcutta34Cochin28Cuttack24Lucknow23Amritsar20Nagpur18Dehradun17Visakhapatnam16Rajkot14Agra10Panaji8Guwahati7Patna6Jabalpur5Jodhpur4Telangana3Varanasi3Ranchi2SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E123Section 271(1)(c)63Section 200A57Section 143(3)50Addition to Income37Penalty32Section 25023Section 14723Section 271H

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub- section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

21
TDS20
Section 271A19
Deduction17
17 Dec 2021
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 422/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

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

200 MM) SUB GRADE LUMP (10 1495.390 1944007 TO 40 MM) SUB GRADE SCREEN 170884.410 248187824 FINE Total IRON 1536011.823 6116299719 LUMP-MN 4853.130 29462041 GRAND TOTAL 1540864.953 6145761760.085 11. It was also brought to our notice that since the fines below Fe content 55% was treated as waste, it used to be accumulated and thus got piled

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

200+ 11,46,700) in the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the assessee claimed that it had made voluntary disclosure of additional income of Rs. 19,57,900/- which were ultimately added in the search assessment and also stated that the same cannot be construed as a disclosure made by the assessee

IDEAL UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,COOCHBIHAR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2460/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2010-11

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) for the concealment of income in relation to non-disclosure of income from FDR and for the bogus purchase on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Finally, AO imposed the penalty by way of passing order dated 21.01.2013 @ 200% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

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)

200/- 2004-05 47,500/- 21,00,000/- NIL 21,47,500/- 2005-06 84,630/- 24,50,000/- NIL 25,34,630/- 2006-07 95,220/- 5,00,000/- NIL 5,95,220/- 2007-08 1,04,940/- 3,93,00,000/- NIL 3

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)

200/- 2004-05 47,500/- 21,00,000/- NIL 21,47,500/- 2005-06 84,630/- 24,50,000/- NIL 25,34,630/- 2006-07 95,220/- 5,00,000/- NIL 5,95,220/- 2007-08 1,04,940/- 3,93,00,000/- NIL 3

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. in this regard also, referred to another decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sudershan Talkies reported in 200 ITR 153(Delhi). I have considered the above case laws relied upon by the ld. A.R. After going through these case laws, it has been

SAIKAT GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2654/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

200/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the asseessee in respect of the addition of Rs.28,00,000/- made to his total income. 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

SRI SUJOY KANTI PAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 63(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

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

200% of the tax of Rs. 91,858/- as calculated by the AO is imposed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee has preferred this appeal before us. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notices issued u/s

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 529/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kamalesh Basu, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(Sr. DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

200/-. 4. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is therefore being initiated separately. 7. The next issue before the AO was with regard to the income declared by the Assessee under the head “Income from House Property”. The Assessee had let out his property at Mumbai to N/S.BBC World (India) Pvt.Ltd., (BBC). The rent actually received by the Assessee was Rs.42

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am A.C.I.T. (International Taxation), Vs. M/S Joy Partnership Mining Circle-1 (2), Kolkata Centre Room No-206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 85/1 Topsia Road, ( South) Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700046 Kolkata-7000107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj 6427 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Lal, AR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee thus explained in detail before the Assessing Officer that there cannot be any case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act given the facts of its case and the position in law in this regard. The Assessing Officer, however, without appreciating the facts of the case