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.

19 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 270clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi262Mumbai249Karnataka102Jaipur66Bangalore41Chennai37Calcutta34Cochin30Surat24Allahabad23Indore23Chandigarh22Kolkata19Ahmedabad17Pune17Hyderabad14Kerala14Lucknow11Cuttack8Nagpur5Agra4Raipur3Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Rajkot1Amritsar1Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)33Section 271(1)22Section 27121Section 153A18Penalty17Section 132(4)16Section 92C15Section 143(3)14Section 274

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)

270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with

13
Addition to Income12
Search & Seizure6
Transfer Pricing5

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)

270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with

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)

270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- ITA Nos 1875- 1878/Kol/09-B-AM 12 Deepak Choudhury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered

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)

270 ITR 523 (Raj) , it was held that:- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2025/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50Section 50B

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 disclosing total income of Rs. 4,81,69,267/-. The 2 Ambo Agro Products Ltd. A.Yr. 2009-10 assessment was completed

KAMAL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri V.N Purohit & Harsh Vardhan Bhardwaj, FCA, ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

270/-. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 2 lakhs from NSS on 11-12-2008 and the same was not disclosed in the return income. The Assessing Officer added the said amount treating the same as income of the assessee for not affording proper explanation. The Assessing officer has initiated

BIJAY KUMAR SHAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80D

270/-, loss on theft amounting to Rs.26,758/-, loss on sale amounting to Rs.1,47,152/-, disallowance of office rent amounting to Rs.37,500/- and disallowance of deduction under section 80D amounting to Rs.1,054/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

270,734 GRAND TOTAL 350,000,000 8.2. The ld. CIT(A) has at page 11 & 12 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered the findings given by the Aa in the assessment order and in the remand report. I have also considered the written submission filed by the AR along with different case laws. I find that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

270,734 GRAND TOTAL 350,000,000 8.2. The ld. CIT(A) has at page 11 & 12 of his order held as follows:- “I have considered the findings given by the Aa in the assessment order and in the remand report. I have also considered the written submission filed by the AR along with different case laws. I find that

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 409/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 410/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

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

270 (Bom) ; and b) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Lakshmi Trust Co.vide order dated 18.12.2006 7. The ld CITA held that the transactions of conversion of loan into equity in the sum of Rs 6,00,000/- in the instant case are not genuine and accordingly upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271

SRI SANAT KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (I.T.), CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

270/-, effectively assessing the income as per the original return filed on 28.07.2014. Ld. AO brought to tax the amounts received from M/s. Bechtel Ltd., UK which were not disclosed as taxable in the revised return of income. Furthermore, relief claimed u/s 90 of the Act was also not allowed on the ground that the same was not claimed

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

JALAN TELECOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 294/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 294/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Jalan Telecom Pvt. Ltd.................................………………………………………........Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 2Nd Floor, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aabcj 2168 C] Ito, Ward 7(4) Kolkata...................……………………………………………..................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 08, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata Dated 03.06.2016 Passed Ex-Parte.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 68

270/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny by the AO and the notice under section 143(2) was issued by him to the assessee. Although the authorised representative of the assessee appeared before the AO in compliance to the notice issued under section 143(2), there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices subsequently

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCAFor Respondent: ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately for the amounts of Rs.48,50,000/- and Rs.1,80,100/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the order passed by the AO by observing the following:- “7.8 In the case of appellant