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.

122 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,232Mumbai1,062Ahmedabad334Jaipur300Bangalore210Indore158Karnataka126Pune125Kolkata122Raipur117Chennai104Hyderabad91Chandigarh72Surat58Visakhapatnam52Allahabad49Rajkot47Amritsar39Nagpur35Calcutta34Cochin33Lucknow27Cuttack14Kerala14Agra12Dehradun12Jodhpur10Panaji10Patna10Jabalpur10Guwahati9SC4Telangana4Varanasi3Ranchi2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)106Section 143(3)69Addition to Income56Section 27447Penalty47Section 92C37Section 271(1)33Section 27126Section 148

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 122 · Page 1 of 7

25
Section 115J24
Disallowance19
Deduction19

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. In this regard reliance can be placed

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

48,568/- being valuation fee. The A.O. considered the valuation fee as not allowable as business expenditure. However, the valuation fee was for the purpose of valuing the assets hypothecated to the bank for renewal of working capital loan. As regards, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)( C ) for concealment of income, it has been admitted by the AO that

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

48 ITD 465 (Delhi) which was also a case where a claim of deduction was made under section 35CCA in respect of donations made through 'V' and 'P'. In that case the Tribunal had cancelled the penalty on the ground that the filing of the revised return before any concrete evidence was gathered by the authorities would exonerate the assessee

ARTDECO COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 174/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 174 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

section 271(1)(c) of the Act which raises a rebuttable presumption and shifts the onus on the appellant to establish bonafide of its claim. 4.6 Though the Hon'ble courts have held time and again penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and, therefore, mensrea is not an essential element for imposition of penalty for breach

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

48,85,243/- 2.4. The A.O. had accepted the above said disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income Income Total Income Addition Disclosed u/s Disclosed (Rs.) Assessed by made by 153A in the A.O. A.O. in (Rs. course of (Rs.) Assessment assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-LIFE TRADERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.231/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(3), -Vs.- M/S. Hi-Life Traders Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata [Pan :Aaach 7860 C] (Revenue) (Assessee) & Co No.23/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hi-Life Traders Pvt. Ltd -Vs.- Acit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7860 C] (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, AO levied penalty U/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs.92,48

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)

48,039 5.1. The details of income declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for each assessment year , income offered in disclosure statement u/s 132(4) of the Act for each assessment year pursuant to the search , income declared in the return filed u/s 153C of the Act for each assessment year , additional income offered during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

48 of the paper book, stated as follows:- “Therefore, assessee made the disclosure of Rs.3.52 Crores considering the stray and loose paper which has been found during the course of search & seizure operation which contain which contain recording of miscellaneous payments expenses etc. which may not have been recorded in the regular books of the company.” 8.3. We now consider

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

48 of the paper book, stated as follows:- “Therefore, assessee made the disclosure of Rs.3.52 Crores considering the stray and loose paper which has been found during the course of search & seizure operation which contain which contain recording of miscellaneous payments expenses etc. which may not have been recorded in the regular books of the company.” 8.3. We now consider

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

48,81,539/- which was modified to Rs 11,02,540/- vide order u/s 143(3) / 1144/251/154/254 of the Act dated 28.11.2007. Subsequently a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the various business premises of the assessee on 12.6.2009. Post survey enquiries revealed certain undisclosed properties made by the assessee in land in the district of Purba

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

48,81,539/- which was modified to Rs 11,02,540/- vide order u/s 143(3) / 1144/251/154/254 of the Act dated 28.11.2007. Subsequently a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the various business premises of the assessee on 12.6.2009. Post survey enquiries revealed certain undisclosed properties made by the assessee in land in the district of Purba

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

48 ITD 210 (Chd) while cancelling the penalty under Section 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

SHRI KEDAR NATH DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

48,691/- 2005-06 Rs.29,08,552/- Rs.5,81,710/- Rs.4,32,934/- Rs.1,73,174/- Rs.7,54,884/- 2006-07 Rs.3,36,050/- Rs.68,008/- ------- ------- Rs.68,008/- 4. In respect of the additions made as aforesaid in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and the additional income offered by the assessee in the return filed

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 409/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 410/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Ductile-Iron ('DI') Spun Pipes and Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,143,377,403. The return was revised

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

48,000 equity shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd in off- market and made a profit of Rs.8,30,00,000/-. The assessee was under the bonafide belief ITA No.1700/Kol/2012- 1 C-AM Sh.Ram Ch.Agarwal that since the shares of listed company i.e. M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd were traded on off market, no capital gains is to be returned thereon.U/s