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.

18 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi117Mumbai116Indore100Bangalore67Jaipur61Chennai40Hyderabad33Pune26Karnataka25Visakhapatnam22Lucknow21Ahmedabad20Kolkata18Cochin11Rajkot6Amritsar6Panaji5Nagpur4Cuttack3Raipur2Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Jabalpur2Surat2Agra1SC1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271D31Section 271E20Penalty18Section 27116Section 271(1)(c)14Section 269T14Section 269S12Section 143(3)12Section 271A9Addition to Income

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)

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 interest. 8.2. The next aspect is as to whether the immunity provided in clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 271

4
Cash Deposit3
Limitation/Time-bar3

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

271E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is only with the issuance of the notice issued

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

271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Since both the appeals have been heard together and facts are common, we dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of penalty proceedings

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

271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Since both the appeals have been heard together and facts are common, we dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of penalty proceedings

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

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

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, 75[section 271BB,] section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E

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, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E

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

271( 1) ( c ) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. “ In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

ACIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAM SINGH RATHORE,, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 864/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee.Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 27Section 271Section 271D

271E is vested with Dy.CIT (now Jt.CIT) and the A.O. does not have the power either to initiate the penalty proceedings or impose the same. There is no procedure for reference by the A. O to the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271 D or 271 E. Therefore, if the JCIT imposes penalty without issuing show cause

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

u/s 273B of the Act, which reads as under:- “273B. 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, [ section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FAB,] [ section 271FB,] [ section 271G,]] [ section 271GA,] [ section 271GB,] [ section 271H

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

271(e ) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on the assessee company allegedly for violating the Section 269T of the Act. The submission of the AR is that his case is squarely covered in the decision of Kolkata ITAT passed in the case of M/s Tarai Transport Corporation vs. JCIT in ITA NO. 273/Kol/2024

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

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

ITO,WARD-7(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KEDIA POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1516/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:1999-00

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

u/s 271)(1)(a) or 271(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset Ld. AR has brought the Circular No. 10 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is reproduced below:- “The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271D and 271E read with Section 274 of the Act.” Page 3 of 15 I.T.A

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271D and 271E r.w.s 274 of the Act. ……………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 19. However, as stated in various paras supra, the assessee has been indulging in cash transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,56,50,000/- during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Though the AO has given a set off of Rs.8