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.

10 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 244Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi113Mumbai103Bangalore24Karnataka21Ahmedabad16Allahabad16Kolkata10Chandigarh7Jaipur6Chennai4Cochin3Lucknow3Pune2Indore2Rajkot1Dehradun1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11Section 244A11Section 143(3)7Addition to Income5Section 92C3Transfer Pricing3Section 144C(13)2Section 43D2Section 144C(5)

TEXMACO RAIL & ENGINEERING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.................................…………………………...................Appellant Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 056. [Pan: Aabct 2592 E] Vs Dcit, Circle – 6(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 07, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 06.09.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 2,32,318/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Work Contracts For Railway & Others. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 27.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,99,43,540/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 12,08,04,960/- After Making Inter Alia An Addition Of Rs. 7,16,043/- On 2 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)
2
Section 144C2
Permanent Establishment2
Double Taxation/DTAA2
Section 274

244A of the Act. On confirmatiom of the said addition by the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings, notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued by the AO required the assessee to show cause as to why penalty in respect of said addition should not be imposed by the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 479/KOL/2013[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 1993-1994

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Das, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 244ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO passed order giving effect to the order of CIT(A) dated 02.09.2010. In the said orders penalty of Rs.63,20,445/- and Rs.1,73,01,141/- imposed for A.Y.1993-94 and 1994-95 was refunded to the assessee. 3. The assessee was aggrieved by the aforesaid order in as much

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 487/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

244A of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Aa has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271 (1 )(c) of the Act 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice either before or during the course of appeal proceedings

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 572/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

244A of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Aa has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271 (1 )(c) of the Act 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice either before or during the course of appeal proceedings

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

Section 145 of the Act, Accounting Standards prescribed by the CBDT are to be followed in computing the business income of an assessee. Accounting Standard-1 prescribed by the CBDT vide notification No. SO 69 (E) dated 25th January, 1996 provides that accounting policies adopted by an assessee should be such that it represents a true and fair view

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

Section 145 of the Act, Accounting Standards prescribed by the CBDT are to be followed in computing the business income of an assessee. Accounting Standard-1 prescribed by the CBDT vide notification No. SO 69 (E) dated 25th January, 1996 provides that accounting policies adopted by an assessee should be such that it represents a true and fair view

M/S ABHOY CHARAN BAKSHI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1492/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] S.A.No.08/Kol/2016 (A/O Ita No.1492/Kol/2015) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Abhoy Charan Bakshi -Vs.- A. C.I.T., Circle-27, Kolkata Haldia [Pan : Aaefm9711E) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 40

244A of the Act Rs. 4,08,524 Total Rs.2,03,38,389 4. As already stated the assessee is in the business of executing civil contracts. As a contractor it debited an amount of Rs.1,99,84,060/-under the head ‘cost of execution ‘ and deducted the TDS as per the following details :- TABLE-1: Details of payment

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out.” The ld AR stated that the assessee herein is a lessee and is entitled for deduction towards lease rentals paid towards cars taken on finance lease. He also stated that the lessor had confirmed that