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.

6 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai62Delhi54Ahmedabad23Chennai20Jaipur20Indore13Pune11Bangalore10Surat7Patna6Kolkata6Agra5Raipur5Chandigarh4Amritsar4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Hyderabad3Nagpur3Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 26311Section 54F11Section 1478Section 1485Penalty5Section 271(1)(c)4Section 143(3)3Capital Gains3Long Term Capital Gains3

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 54Section 54F

271(1)(c) of the Act and having not satisfied with the explanation, for such avoidance and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. Rs. 90,59,691/-. 4. The same was challenged before the CIT-A. The CIT-A after considering the various submissions of assessee cancelled the impugned penalty by observing/stating as under

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: Disposed
Section 269S2
Section 271D2
Cash Deposit2
ITAT Kolkata
03 Aug 2016
AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.63,368/- for AY 2006-07 is wrong, erroneous, arbitrary, excessive and deserves to be deleted/cancelled.” 4. Assessee did not challenge the order dated 21-04-2010 passed under section 263 of the Act. She has also not challenged the order dated 30.12.2010 passed under section 144 r/w 263 of the Act. Only challenge

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

271(1)(c), 271D and 271E read with Section 274 of the Act.” Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3.2. With this finding he set aside to the AO for detailed verification of cash transaction to the tune of Rs. 5,21,17,075/-. 3.3. It needs to be mentioned that the present

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

271(1)(c), 271D and 271E r.w.s 274 of the Act. ……………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 19. However, as stated in various paras supra, the assessee has been indulging in cash transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,56,50,000/- during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Though the AO has given a set off of Rs.8,50,944/- wrongly without

GOPAL KUNDU ROY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2263/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

u/s. 148 Rs.3,12,447/- plus Rs.13,18,901/- (stamp duty Rs.15,09,374/- minus Rs.1,90,473/- as cost of acquisition)] and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of concealed the particulars of income. 2 Gopal Kundu Roy 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

ITA 169/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

u/s 143(3)/147) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2006-07. Shri P.K. Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri R.P. Agarwal, Ld. Senior Advocate and Shri Nira Seth, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. ITA No.169/Kol/2014