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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 259clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi109Mumbai87Chennai72Jaipur37Bangalore22Chandigarh22Lucknow10Panaji10Ahmedabad9Patna8Indore8Kolkata6Hyderabad6Guwahati5Pune4Allahabad3Jodhpur2Nagpur2Raipur2Cochin2Cuttack2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Rajkot1Surat1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14711Section 14811Section 2509Section 271(1)(c)9Addition to Income5Penalty5Section 243Section 144B2Section 682

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

Section 115B2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Bogus/Accommodation Entry2

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. With regard to the deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed in the return of income u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, the ld. AR submits that deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

259 ITR 19 (SC). I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 7. That, the Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 91,00,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act to the total income of the assessee by arbitrarily alleging that the assessee failed to furnish

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 431/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which in consequential of the aforesaid quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). We, therefore, firstly take up the assessee’s appeal relating to the quantum additions. I.T.A No.431&432/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd ITA No.431/Kol/2022 - The assessee in this appeal

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD _ 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 432/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which in consequential of the aforesaid quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). We, therefore, firstly take up the assessee’s appeal relating to the quantum additions. I.T.A No.431&432/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd ITA No.431/Kol/2022 - The assessee in this appeal