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.

9 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi112Mumbai63Jaipur57Bangalore32Indore26Visakhapatnam15Hyderabad12Ahmedabad12Pune9Kolkata9Lucknow9Cochin8Chandigarh7Rajkot6Chennai5Raipur4Nagpur4Agra3Cuttack3Patna1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 271A17Section 27411Penalty9Section 273B6Addition to Income6Section 133A5Section 1485Section 145(3)5Section 271D5

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1827/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act of Rs. 10,21,124/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 3 I.T.A. No. 1827/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Section 2715
Survey u/s 133A5

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, section

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

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 805/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

273 of the Act and penalty should not be imposed in such cases. 010. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances find that firstly, the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts as provided u/s 44AA of the Act, which are duly audited and that the audit reports have been furnished regularly, therefore, there is no case of invoking

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 802/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

273 of the Act and penalty should not be imposed in such cases. 010. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances find that firstly, the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts as provided u/s 44AA of the Act, which are duly audited and that the audit reports have been furnished regularly, therefore, there is no case of invoking

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 806/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

273 of the Act and penalty should not be imposed in such cases. 010. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances find that firstly, the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts as provided u/s 44AA of the Act, which are duly audited and that the audit reports have been furnished regularly, therefore, there is no case of invoking

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 803/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

273 of the Act and penalty should not be imposed in such cases. 010. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances find that firstly, the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts as provided u/s 44AA of the Act, which are duly audited and that the audit reports have been furnished regularly, therefore, there is no case of invoking

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 804/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

273 of the Act and penalty should not be imposed in such cases. 010. We therefore, under the given facts and circumstances find that firstly, the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts as provided u/s 44AA of the Act, which are duly audited and that the audit reports have been furnished regularly, therefore, there is no case of invoking

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 785/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal