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.

8 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi107Mumbai78Jaipur31Chennai22Allahabad21Bangalore19Hyderabad18Ahmedabad12Kolkata8Indore8Guwahati5Nagpur3Lucknow3Pune3Cuttack2Chandigarh2Surat1Jodhpur1Raipur1Rajkot1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234B12Section 115J12Section 271(1)(c)9Section 2504Section 1544Section 234C4Section 801A4Section 92C4Deduction4

BABLU ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ghosal and Shri V. N. Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 274

269/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In the assessment order, Ld. AO while initiating penalty proceedings, noted that penalty is being initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the impugned penalty order passed by the Ld. AO, while concluding,ld. AO held that assessee had concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus

SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

Penalty4

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

ITA 459/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 68

penalty of Rs. 5,79,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 26.09.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against said order was 25.10.2022. 3) However due to multiple health problem of self as well as of an elderly family member, it could join duties from 15.01.2023. 4) Thereafter, I consulted my CA, who prepared, drafted

SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 458/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 68

penalty of Rs. 5,79,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 26.09.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against said order was 25.10.2022. 3) However due to multiple health problem of self as well as of an elderly family member, it could join duties from 15.01.2023. 4) Thereafter, I consulted my CA, who prepared, drafted

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2305/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 142(1)

section (1) of Sec. 142 of the Act on 08.12.2017 in the name\nof the firm M/s K. B. Processing, which has been dissolved. Subsequently,\nthe A.O., Ward – 50(6), Kolkata had passed an Order u/s 144 of the Act on\n03.12.2019 in respect of the dissolved firm and determined the total income\nof the erstwhile firm at Rs.39

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted