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.

158 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 37clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,621Mumbai1,448Ahmedabad429Jaipur335Bangalore280Chennai203Hyderabad170Pune164Kolkata158Indore129Karnataka126Raipur122Surat118Chandigarh101Rajkot84Lucknow52Allahabad49Amritsar48Visakhapatnam41Cochin38Calcutta35Nagpur24Cuttack22Agra21Dehradun16Patna15Kerala15Guwahati13Jabalpur10Panaji9SC8Ranchi8Jodhpur5Varanasi4Telangana2Rajasthan2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)83Section 143(3)68Addition to Income60Penalty38Section 25033Section 27430Section 92C29Section 14823Disallowance

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 158 · Page 1 of 8

...
23
Section 14722
Section 14A21
Deduction20

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

37,935/- imposed on disallowance amounting to Rs. 1,05,743/- on account of loss incurred on purchase and sale of securities and units as per provision u/ s 94(7) of the Act. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 150/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

37,869/- Total 40,92,148/- In respect of the aforesaid addition of Rs.42,06,434.00 which was offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed penalty holding that the assessee has violated the provision of law enumerated in Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2004-2005

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

37,766/- 2007-2008 Rs.1,15,15,741/- 2008-2009 Rs.2,38,40,695/- 4. The above penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for all the five years under consideration were challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well

BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T-CIRCLE-I, KOLKATA, SILIGURI

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2482/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Miss Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

37,87,080/-to Sri Sajjan Kumar Maskara was shown but information received from Sajjan kumar Maskara revealed that the assessee had actually made total sales of Rs. 60,73,711./- Thus, Rs, 23,06,676/- has been suppressed on account of sales. The assesse vide this office letter NO: DCIT/Cir- 1/Slg/2011-12/571. Dated: 22.12.2011 was informed that

SRI SURESH KARMAKAR,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2490/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

37,220/-. The explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of the penalty proceedings was not found acceptable by him and he proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.3,20,444/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1015/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 25Section 250Section 251Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

37 (Allahabad) in which it has been held that non- initiation of penalty proceeding by the assessing authority renders the order to be erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the said matter can be revised u/s.263. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, when on the same addition in original order, penalty

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) is to penalize the assessee for concealing particulars of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It is of no consequence whether the income returned was a profit or loss. Therefore, even if there is loss return and no tax was leviable even after disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was still leviable. For this

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/KOL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

37,56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

37,56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

u/s 143(3)/153C completed on 31.12.2009. 4. That the Departmnet craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additonal evidence at the time of hearing of the case. “ 2. The solitary issue raised by Revenue in all the grounds of appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty

JHANTU GHOSH,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

37,062/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the undisclosed income of Rs.9,36,900/- by treating the same as the concealed income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

ITA 931/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

M/S. SOURENEE LEAVES (P) LTD., [FORMERLY M/S. SOURENI PLANTATION (P) LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

37,915/- on account of belated payment of employees Provident Fund and Rs.5,81,689/- on account of disallowance of benefit wrongly claimed under Rule 8 of Income Tax Rules on account of tea manufactured from green leaves purchased from outside. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since no explanation

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

37,060 Total Income Rs. 80,88,821 Rounded off u/s.288A to Rs.80,88,820/- only including short term capital gains of Rs.10,38,108/- which will be taxed at special rate of 10%. Assessed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Issue demand notice. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)( c) initiated. Tax calculation is given shown below

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

section 269SS of the act namely loan of Rs.13,37,035/-. 3. Before CIT(A) the assessee raised a preliminary issue on the validity of the order passed by JCIT, Range-44 u/s 271D of the Act. The objection was as follows :- “In this case penalty proceeding was initiated by DC1T, Cir - 44, Kol. during the course of assessment

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

37,17,017/- minus Rs. 10,03,438/-) vide order u/s 251/143(3) of the Act dated 31.05.2018. Penalty proceeding has been initiated against the assessee on account of concealment amount of income of Rs. 27,13,534/-. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

ORIENTAL RELAYS LLP (SUCCESSOR TO ORIENTAL RELAYS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Shreya Loyalka, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 29.07.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre