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.

13 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82Delhi69Jaipur41Indore25Hyderabad24Bangalore24Pune20Chennai16Kolkata13Ahmedabad10Visakhapatnam10Cochin6Cuttack4Lucknow3Nagpur2Chandigarh2Amritsar2Surat2Rajkot1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271D19Section 271E19Section 271(1)(c)14Section 269T14Penalty13Section 2719Section 2638Section 1478Section 269S8Addition to Income

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

269T of the Act fall under Chapter XX-B which reads as “REQUIREMENT AS TO MODE OF ACCEPTANCE, PAYMENT OR REPAYMENT IN CERTAIN CASES TO COUNTERACT EVASION OF TAX”. In the instant case , since the lender (partner of the assessee firm) and borrower (i.e the assesse firm) are duly identified and the sources for repayment of loans stood duly proved

3
Cash Deposit2

M/S S.R.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - MALDA., MALDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

271 D had observed as under: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party is obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 990/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 991/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

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

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUNIL KUMAR KUNDU, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is here by dismissed

ITA 2110/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 253Section 269TSection 271Section 3

Section 269T of the Act as a result of which the penalty proceedings u/s 271( e) of the Act was initiated

M/S ARKIT VINCOM PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2397/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Arkit Vincom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 3907 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 269TSection 271E

271 E of the Act by reiterating the same findings of the ld AO. However, he deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act in the sum of Rs 70,875/- which was repaid by way of sale of shares. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Because that

BINOD KUMAR AGARWAL.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 2,JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 237/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjun, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271E

269T of the Act, which is sine qua non before the ld. JCIT proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. In support of our submission we rely on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City reported

SRABANI CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 240/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sarbani Chakraborty Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pan: Adkpc2488D) Range-29, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2016

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kr. Singh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

section 271E of the Act and since the Income Tax Act makes no difference basing on any relationship the JCIT is justified in imposing the penalty and the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the same. For this reason he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

269T read with Section 271D & 271E of the Act respectively. 3. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.11.2019 whereby he indicated that Rs. 1,77,84,300/- was never verified from the angle of genuineness of transaction by ld. AO and hence, proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were merited. 3.1. After

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

269T read with Section 271D & 271E of the Act respectively. He, however, accepted the taxable income at Rs. 37,84,930/-, as in the original assessment order dated 23.03.2015. Page 2 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 571/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.11.2019 whereby

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 1Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 270ASection 271Section 271ASection 44A

u/s 44AB of the Act nonetheless, there may Anita Basak; A.Y. 2018-19 be being shortcomings in the books of account. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Third Member decision in case of ACIT Vs. Aggarwal Construction Co. (2007) 106 ITD 129 (Chandigarh) dated 29.01.2007, wherein it has been held as under:- “15. I have

SRI PLABAN KUMAR BASU,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 269Section 271Section 271D

271 D for violation of the provisions under section 26955 of the IT Act. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated its submissions made before the lower authorities. The appellant's contentions were carefully considered from all angles. From the appeal records I observe that in the Cash book and Ledger for the relevant previous year, the appellant has treated

ARABRISH CHOWBEY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 346/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.346/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ambrish Chowbey Vs. Acit, Rg-26, Kolkata Flat No.1C, Merlin Laurel 169, Ajc Bose Road, Garden, 71, Nrisingha Dutta Kolkata – 700014. Road, Behala, Kol – 8. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Acupc 5847 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri D.K. Saha, Fca Respondent By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Kolkata, In Appeal No.113/Cit(A)-17/Kol, Dated 30.11.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.05.2008. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I) That The Order Of Ao Has Been Set Aside By Hon’Ble Itat Kolkata With The Directive To Re-Adjudicate The Same, Giving Due Opportunity To The Assessee To Produce Relevant Evidences. Ii) That The Revised Order Passed By The Ld. Ao In Deference To The Order Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Saha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 269TSection 271(1)(C)Section 271E

u/s 271(1)(C) or 271E of the I.T. Act 1961 in place of the set aside order of ld. AO dated 31.12.2007. iii) That the contention of ld. CIT(A) that repayment of loan in cash was not the subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT is not correct and tenable. iv) That the rejection of prayer