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.

11 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi131Bangalore77Mumbai65Indore62Ahmedabad27Lucknow22Chennai22Jaipur21Karnataka21Hyderabad16Cochin12Kolkata11Visakhapatnam10Chandigarh7Pune6Jabalpur6Rajkot5Panaji5Surat4Amritsar4Dehradun3Nagpur3Jodhpur2Agra2Raipur2SC1Kerala1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271C16Section 271A11Penalty9Section 271(1)(c)8Section 132(4)8Section 153C7Section 153A7Section 143(3)7Section 407TDS

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act , if suo moto disclosure of income is made u/s 132(4) of the Act, then the assessee would get immunity from levy of penalty. After peripheral scrutiny of the seized documents, an income disclosure of Rs 15 crores was made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act . This preliminary statement

4
Search & Seizure3
Deduction3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act , if suo moto disclosure of income is made u/s 132(4) of the Act, then the assessee would get immunity from levy of penalty. After peripheral scrutiny of the seized documents, an income disclosure of Rs 15 crores was made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act . This preliminary statement

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1869/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 132 of the Act, therefore, the provision of Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable to assessee. At this juncture, we would like to reproduce the provision of Explanation 5A to Sec. 271C which are reproduced as under :- “[271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1)…. (2)… … [Explanation

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 273B of the Act which reads as under:- “[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271, section 271AA,] section 271B73[, section 271BA], 74[section 271C

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

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

ITA 273/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. For the sake of easy recall, the provisions of Section 273B of the Act are extracted as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C

I.T.O WD - 28(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAN VIJAY SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194ISection 271C

271C of the Act. From the facts of the case, we find that income of KPT is exempted from tax and in this connection, we are putting our reliance in the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Gourishankar Bihani v. DCIT in ITA No.1127/Kol/2011 for AY 2007-08 dated 18.12.2014, wherein this Tribunal has held as under

D.CI.T.(TDS), CIRCLE-58, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.J.EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 2569/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Sudipta Guha, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271CSection 273BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

271 C is sustainable in view of deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. ITA No.2569/Kol/2013AC-JM M/s. J.J Exporters Ltd 1 3. Brief facts are that the AO by an order dtd. 28-12-2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act had disallowed an amount of Rs.3,84,07,558/- u/s

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 194CSection 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271G

271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FAB,] [ section 271FB,] [ section 271G,]] [ section 271GA,] [ section 271GB,] [ section 271H,] [ section 271-I,] [ section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub- section

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books of account.” 5. Shri Gauri Prasad Sen, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Vivek Verma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Ld. AR submitted paper

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1864/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

271C. and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn't attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs.- ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra - Trib.) had held that the second proviso to Section

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that or Revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/KOL/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194C(1)Section 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs-ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib) had held that the second proviso to Section