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.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi478Mumbai466Ahmedabad206Bangalore84Pune54Hyderabad43Jaipur42Rajkot41Kolkata39Allahabad23Karnataka21Indore21Raipur20Chandigarh12Dehradun12Surat12Amritsar11Lucknow10Guwahati7Patna7Agra5Chennai5Jodhpur5Nagpur3Cuttack3Visakhapatnam3SC2Jabalpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)32Section 132(4)27Section 234B24Section 153A24Section 143(3)21Penalty20Addition to Income20Section 234C18Section 115J16

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

Section 25015
Deduction12
Disallowance12

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, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80J

Section 115JB of the Act resulted in calculation of profits at Rs.40163180. 23. In view thereof, in conclusion, the assessment order records as follows:- ‘Assessed at Rs.40163180 u/s. 115JB, being higher of two. Interest u/s. 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings us/s 271

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

234C of the I T Act, if any. Give credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. Demand notice and challan issued accordingly. Issue notice u/s. 271(1)(c)of the IT Act.” 11. We have perused the penalty order also. There are only three paragraphs i.e. para-4, 6 and 7, where the AO has made some observation

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

234C of the I T Act, if any. Give credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. Demand notice and challan issued accordingly. Issue notice u/s. 271(1)(c)of the IT Act.” 11. We have perused the penalty order also. There are only three paragraphs i.e. para-4, 6 and 7, where the AO has made some observation

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

234C, etc. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undoubtedly, the assessee on understanding that the same was draft assessment order, made objections to the DRP, who gave certain directions and thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of 13 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

u/s. 140A (-) 6,600 Total 24,92,377 Add 234B 7,50,419 Add 234C 123 Total Tax payable 30,23,135” In this appeal challenge by the Assessee is to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of the addition of a sum of Rs.60,99,454, Rs.1,09,473 and Rs.9

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI GOPAL KUMAR NAREDI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2062/KOL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 271A

penalty at 30% of the undisclosed income u/s. 271 AAB(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter, the ‘Act’ in short] by observing as under:- 1 I.T.A No. 2062/Kol/2017 A.Y 2015-16 Shri Gopal Kumar Naredi. “5. In this case, the assessee has made disclosure during the statement recorded under Oath u/s 132(4) of the Income

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

234C of the Act which is on the basis of returned income. 8. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

234C of the Act which is on the basis of returned income. 8. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1746/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 Harish Kumar Sarawgi, V/S. Dcit, Central Dumri Road, Whatty Circle-Xi, Poddar Bazar, Giridhi – 815301 Court, 18, Rabindra Jharkhand Sarani, [Pan No.Aldps 5357 E] Kolkata – 700 001

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 271A

234C has been calculated correctly as there is no provision in the IT Act to treat the seized cash as Advance Tax. Seized cash can be adjusted against the existing liability. On the date of seizure, there was no existing liability on account of tax. Therefore, the assessee’s contention on this cunt is not tenable and the same

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 704/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 705/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

section 14A mandate that the onus in on the AO to justify the basis for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Appellant in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under Act. 3.e) The impugned order has further erred in not abiding

ASCON INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2109/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act which is consequential in nature. As the main ground of appeal does not hold its ground the consequential ground of appeal is also dismissed. Ground No. 6: In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the leavy of interest u/s 234B, 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2009-10 and 2013- 14, dated 28.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 respectively. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. McNally Sayaji Engineering Limited

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2009-10 and 2013- 14, dated 28.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 respectively. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. McNally Sayaji Engineering Limited

ABN AMRO BANK N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1738/KOL/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajroria, Sr. Adocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjana, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 44C

section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

NITIN KUMAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1457/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1457/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nitin Kumar -Vs- Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata [Pan: Amupk 9557 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty explanation 5 Clause (ii) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in view of satisfying all the three conditions prescribed therein. The ld. AO later issued notice u/s 153A of the Act to the assessee. The assessee in response to the said notice u/s 153A of the Act, filed his return of income for the Assessment year

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2169/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

u/s 14A Rs. 5,38,000/- (iii) Disallowance of interest Rs. 6,025/- expenses 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144C(5) of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “1. Orders bad in law and on facts 1.1. That the order passed