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.

251 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,504Delhi1,266Ahmedabad455Jaipur447Chennai352Indore299Surat274Bangalore272Kolkata251Hyderabad223Pune157Raipur151Rajkot127Chandigarh94Nagpur92Cochin90Lucknow82Visakhapatnam81Allahabad81Patna60Ranchi48Cuttack45Jabalpur36Amritsar34Agra33Guwahati26Jodhpur22Dehradun21Panaji17Varanasi13

Key Topics

Section 250306Section 271(1)(c)63Section 14756Addition to Income52Section 14851Section 6843Penalty38Section 143(2)37Section 143(3)

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

d) In the case of Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. (page

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 251 · Page 1 of 13

...
35
Section 27432
Unexplained Cash Credit14
Limitation/Time-bar14

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

d) In the case of Subhash Trading Co [1996] 86 Taxman 30 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. (page

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 02.01.2025 for the AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. 02. The only issue raised by the Revenue in both the appeals is against the orders

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

ITA 626/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 02.01.2025 for the AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. 02. The only issue raised by the Revenue in both the appeals is against the orders

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 568/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 587/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 564/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 565/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 567/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 586/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 573/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 583/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 566/KOL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved