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.

4 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 270A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai91Jaipur89Delhi69Chennai54Bangalore35Ahmedabad27Pune20Rajkot16Hyderabad13Patna12Agra11Chandigarh10Indore10Surat8Amritsar7Raipur7Nagpur6Lucknow6Kolkata4Cuttack3Visakhapatnam2Dehradun2Jodhpur2Karnataka2Cochin2Allahabad2SC2Guwahati2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)16Section 270A9Section 153A8Section 132(4)4Penalty4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 1323Section 275(1)(c)

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 974/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

2
Section 2742
Deemed Dividend2
Undisclosed Income2

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 973/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

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

B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment 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

PRINCE JAIN,HOOGLY vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 355 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

b) ************************** (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 6. It was the submission