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.

36 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai292Delhi261Karnataka117Jaipur50Ahmedabad44Chennai37Kolkata36Calcutta34Indore30Pune28Bangalore25Visakhapatnam15Chandigarh14Lucknow13Cuttack12Panaji12Hyderabad11Agra8Guwahati7Cochin7Surat7Rajkot4Amritsar4Allahabad2Raipur2SC2Telangana2Jodhpur1Patna1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)44Section 271(1)41Penalty27Section 143(3)22Addition to Income21Section 132(4)20Section 27418Section 153A16Section 147

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)

260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For Concealment of income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of income

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 14812
Search & Seizure7
Undisclosed Income6

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- “Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For Concealmentof income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of income filed

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

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

260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- “Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For Concealmentof income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of income filed

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- “Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penatly – For Concealmentof income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of income filed

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

260/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is neither tenable in law nor in facts. 4. For that imposition of penalty at 200% is without basis, arbitrary and bad in law.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a co-operative society and engaged in the business of contracting activity. During the course of assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1938/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant pointed out that since inception "contribution from shops" was being assessed as "business income" as claimed in return. Mere reporting of income Assessment Year: 2005-2006 under a different head would not characterize the particulars reported as "inaccurate" to attract levy of penalty under section 271

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

260/- 2005-06 33,93,719/- ------- 33,93,719/- 2006-07 44,98,393/- 3,86,850/- 48,85,243/- 2.4. The A.O. had accepted the above said disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income Income Total Income Addition Disclosed u/s Disclosed (Rs.) Assessed by made by 153A

DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

u/s 153C of the Act , had specified the manner in which such undisclosed income has been earned and paid taxes due thereon. Aggrieved, the revenue has raised the similar grounds for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 as mentioned hereinabove. 7. The Learned DR argued that but for the search, the assessee would not have come forward

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- CIT vs Arthanariswamy Chettiar (S.S.K.G.) (1982) 136 ITR 145 (Mad) – Para 5 ACIT vs RMP Infotech P Ltd (2011) 12 ITR (trib) 581 (Chennai) – Para 5 DCIT vs Dr.Satish B Gupta (2011) 135 TTJ (Ahd) 611 – Para 5 Smt.Govinda Devi

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- CIT vs Arthanariswamy Chettiar (S.S.K.G.) (1982) 136 ITR 145 (Mad) – Para 5 ACIT vs RMP Infotech P Ltd (2011) 12 ITR (trib) 581 (Chennai) – Para 5 DCIT vs Dr.Satish B Gupta (2011) 135 TTJ (Ahd) 611 – Para 5 Smt.Govinda Devi

M/S SAJAN KUMAR BANSAL & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1452/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.B.Pramanik, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 274

260/- ITA Nos.1452 to 1456/Kol/2012 – M/s. Sajan Kr.Bansal & Sons(HUF) A.Ys.2003-04 to 2007-08 2 3.1. In the orders of Assessment passed for the various AYs, the AO has accepted the income returned by the Assessee. The AO has elaborated on the disclosure letter dated 12.8.2009 and the verification of the books of accounts. There is no comments

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

260/- against assessee’s declared returned income of Rs.10,59,6366/-. In the said order an amount of Rs.5,20,620/- was added by the AO since the assessee has concealed the work contract. On 2 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 482/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

260/- against assessee’s declared returned income of Rs.10,59,6366/-. In the said order an amount of Rs.5,20,620/- was added by the AO since the assessee has concealed the work contract. On 2 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 483/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

260/- against assessee’s declared returned income of Rs.10,59,6366/-. In the said order an amount of Rs.5,20,620/- was added by the AO since the assessee has concealed the work contract. On 2 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed

ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI PRABAL KANTI PRAMANIK, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 821/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.821/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Circle – 27, Haldia Vs. Shri Prabal Kantipramanik Dubey House, Basudevpur, Garkamalpur, Mahishadal, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Dist: Purbamedinipur, W.B, Purbamedinipur – 721 602. 721628 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeypp4276P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Revenue/Department By :Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Assessee By :Shri T.P. Kaur, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue,Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-7/C-27/14-15, Dated 13.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 05.03.2014. 2. Before Us, The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Kaur, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance. 4.The appellant craves leaves to, add to, alter or modify any one or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned above.” 3.The brief facts qua the issue are that assessment in the assessee’s case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 26/11/2010at an income of Rs.1,44,34,260

RANJIT ROY,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

271 D of the Act is inapplicable. It was also pleaded by the ld. Counsel before us that the assessee was in dearth of funds on the dates when such amounts were received. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty mainly on the reason that “……………. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate the urgency

GOPAL BANIK,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), KOLKATA -2,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

260/-. A search operation u/s 132 Gopal Banik of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 23.04.2019. A credible information was received from the officer-in-charge that a cash seizure of Rs.80,02,000/- was made from the assessee and consequent to such search proceedings, the assessee was issued notices. Based on the details submitted by the police

ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BAGRI IMPEX PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1060/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1060/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.O. Ward-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Bagri Impex Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 9912 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Sh. G. Banerjee, Fca Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. G. Banerjee, FCA
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

260 CTR 75 (Calcutta), though the facts of the aforesaid case is not squarely applicable to the present case. 3. The appellant craves leave to adduce addition and/or supplementary ground/grounds and to amend and/or alter the ground/grounds any time before or the time of hearing of the appeal. 2 M/s Bagri Impex Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 3. None appeared

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

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 all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

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

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 all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional