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.

128 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 43(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,337Mumbai1,096Ahmedabad375Jaipur281Bangalore233Pune145Hyderabad139Kolkata128Karnataka126Indore124Raipur121Chennai95Chandigarh91Visakhapatnam59Rajkot56Surat51Amritsar46Nagpur38Calcutta35Allahabad30Cochin29Lucknow18Dehradun18Kerala17Guwahati17Cuttack15Agra12Ranchi10Jabalpur9Patna8Varanasi7Panaji6SC6Jodhpur6Rajasthan3Telangana2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)118Section 143(3)91Addition to Income54Section 27442Penalty36Section 115J24Section 14823Section 14723Section 153A

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

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

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) for all the six years under consideration for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3.1 to 3.3 of his impugned orders, which are identical:- “3.1. The submissions are carefully considered in the light of the facts recorded in the assessment order and the penalty order. From a reading of penalty order, it is seen that

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

22
Section 25022
Disallowance21
Deduction18
ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

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

43,350 6,58,510 Disclosure made u/s 132(4) 1,65,00,000 66,000 22,72,000 1,96,65,528 Income disclosed u/s 153A 1,66,72,770 66,000 22,72,000 1,96,65,528 Income assessed u/s 153A 1,66,72,770 1

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

43,23,196/- as his income under the head “income from other sources”. The said return was duly processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) on I.T.A. Nos. 93 & 94/KOL./2017 Assessment year: 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 & C.O. Nos. 12 & 13/KOL/2017 (in ITA Nos. 93 & 94/KOL/2017) Assessment Years: 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 Page 3 of 12 10.05.2013 thereby

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)

penalty levied by Assessing Officer as per Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before coming to the specific issue let us understand the history of the case. In the present case the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction, real estate and other related contractual jobs. There was a search

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

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. I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 account of interest received on income

DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

271(1)( c) of the Act. Hence he held that assessee is not entitled for immunity from levy of penalty. Later the assessee moved a rectification application before the Learned CITA in respect of mistake committed by the Learned CITA with regard to the finding that assessee had not paid the taxes on the income disclosed u/s 153A

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2463/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

43 Taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission or cessation of trading liability (Cessation of liability) - Assessment year 2007-08 - In return of income for assessment year 2007-08, assessee had shown a certain amount by way of his debts - He supplied details of 27 different creditors -Assessing Officer undertook exercise to verify records

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI, GIRIDIH

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

ITA 1688/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

43,964 300% The ld CITA on first appeal upheld the levy of penalty but reduced the same to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the revenue are in appeals before us. 4. The ld AR placed on record the copy of the show cause notice issued u/s 274 rws 271(1

SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C. XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1640/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

43,964 300% The ld CITA on first appeal upheld the levy of penalty but reduced the same to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the revenue are in appeals before us. 4. The ld AR placed on record the copy of the show cause notice issued u/s 274 rws 271(1

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

271(1)(c). But then, the courts have laid down the basic principles which are available for guidance while deciding any penal proceedings, In the case of Vinod K Bhagat vs ACIT (2009) 118 ITD 574, it was held that penalty provisions do not lie where the very basis for the imposition of the penalty was the additional income disclosed

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

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1938/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

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

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

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable:- "In the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, following adjustments/additions has been made by the Assessing Officer. 1. Contribution from shops given on leave and license amounting to Rs.13,90,260/- was treated by the AO under the head 'Income from house

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAGHUNANDAN MODY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1439/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer..............................…………………………............................................Appellant Ward 36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. Shri Raghunandan Mody....................…………………………………………………….....Respondent Rasoi Court, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Burdwan – 700 001 [Pan: Aexpm 8474 P] Appearances By: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.M. Surana Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 08, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.03.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 11,38,202/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27L

penalty of Rs. 11,38,202/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,990/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SALSAR PROPERTIES & FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1081/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271A

u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act redundant. The legislature in its wisdom had given a thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances under which the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty pursuant to the search subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said section . Hence in view of the above, we hold that

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act redundant. The legislature in its wisdom had given a thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances under which the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty pursuant to the search subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said section . Hence in view of the above, we hold that

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2374/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271A

43(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30/03/0216 and the amount of Rs.5,09,58,950/ the Act on 30/03/0216 and the amount of Rs.5,09,58,950/- was treated as undisclosed was treated as undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated income. Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated on the undisclosed income undisclosed

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

43,880/- after treating short term capital loss of Rs. 30,927/- claimed by the assessee as 'Bogus’. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference