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.

192 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,693Mumbai1,406Ahmedabad441Jaipur326Bangalore325Kolkata192Hyderabad186Indore167Chennai166Pune139Karnataka131Raipur126Rajkot90Chandigarh88Surat81Amritsar49Allahabad49Visakhapatnam42Lucknow40Nagpur35Calcutta35Cochin34Dehradun27Agra23Guwahati22Ranchi14Cuttack12Varanasi11Jabalpur9SC8Patna7Panaji6Telangana4Jodhpur4Rajasthan3

Key Topics

Section 250361Section 271(1)(c)59Section 143(3)57Addition to Income41Section 27436Penalty34Section 153A25Section 6821Section 147

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act or from the assessment order. In response to this, the Learned DR relied on the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Act which is introduced with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989. He relied on various case laws in support of his various contentions stated supra

Showing 1–20 of 192 · Page 1 of 10

...
19
Section 92C17
Transfer Pricing12
Deduction10

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

32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied on the order

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

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

32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied on the order

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Bhattacharya, JCIT, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

32,20,620/- declared u/s. 139(1) under original return filed on 19-12-2005 for A.Y 2005- 06. 7. In the course of search proceedings the assessee filed its explanation regarding cash etc... as found during the search with full particulars containing books of account etc. before the AO . The AO examined the same and no adverse inference

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

32,62,823/- 5. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A, further admitted incomes of Rs.8,83,517/- and Rs.15,00,000/- for assessment years 2002-03 and 2007- 08, thereby admitting an aggregate undisclosed income of Rs.4,56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

32,62,823/- 5. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A, further admitted incomes of Rs.8,83,517/- and Rs.15,00,000/- for assessment years 2002-03 and 2007- 08, thereby admitting an aggregate undisclosed income of Rs.4,56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

u/s 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-section

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2333/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

u/s 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement under sub-section

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2334/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

u/s 143(3) in such cases. 6. Extracts from the Explanatory Memo to Finance Bill,2012: Penalty on undisclosed income found during the course of search - 271 AAB Introduced : Under the existing provisions of section 271 AAA of the Income-tax Act, no penalty is levied if the assessee admits the undisclosed 3 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Smt. Savitri Devi

TEXMACO RAIL & ENGINEERING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.................................…………………………...................Appellant Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 056. [Pan: Aabct 2592 E] Vs Dcit, Circle – 6(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 07, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 06.09.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 2,32,318/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Work Contracts For Railway & Others. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 27.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,99,43,540/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 12,08,04,960/- After Making Inter Alia An Addition Of Rs. 7,16,043/- On 2 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

32,318/- u/s 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee in respect of an addition of Rs. 7,16,043/- made to the total income of the assessee. 3. The penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before

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. There is no question of levying the penalty under Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, L’d CIT(A) held that the provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee and accordingly deleted the penalty imposed

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 736/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

Section 10(32)Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 10(32) of the Act in place of 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued upon the assessee Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) dated 27.01.2011 was served upon the assessee dated 29.06.2011 for fixing the date of hearing dated 08.07.2011. In compliance thereto assessee appeared before Assessing Officer dated

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

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 577/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 250

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 588/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 250

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 575/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 250

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 572/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 250

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

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

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that