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.

155 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,206Mumbai1,030Ahmedabad301Jaipur270Bangalore258Kolkata155Hyderabad144Chennai141Karnataka133Pune120Indore109Chandigarh99Surat67Raipur58Rajkot53Amritsar53Nagpur40Lucknow39Visakhapatnam37Calcutta34Allahabad26Agra19Cochin15Dehradun15Kerala14Guwahati13Cuttack12Patna12Varanasi8Ranchi8Jabalpur6Panaji5SC4Telangana4Jodhpur3Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)89Section 143(3)88Addition to Income64Penalty46Section 14842Section 14738Section 6832Section 25030Section 143(2)

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

56,294/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,58,970/- and the addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits

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

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
28
Section 27426
Disallowance22
Deduction16

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

56,294/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,58,970/- and the addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

penalty for all the assessment years under appeal; - the assessee had made voluntary disclosure of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 4,72,603/- for the Asst Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 during the course of search assessment proceedings after filing the return u/s 153A of the Act but before any detection by the department and the same is considered

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

56,422/- on the amount of income disclosed u/s. 132(4) ITA Nos. 921 & 922/Kol/2011-C-JM 1 M/s. Dhansar Engg.P.Ltd and included in the return filed u/s. 153A. The penalty levied is wrong and need to be deleted.” ITA No. 922/Kol/2011 A.Y 2006-07 ( by the assessee) 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “That

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

56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income admitted Income Income assessed Net tax payable u/s 139(1) disclosed u/s u/s 153A u/s 153A (Rs.) 153A

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

56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income admitted Income Income assessed Net tax payable u/s 139(1) disclosed u/s u/s 153A u/s 153A (Rs.) 153A

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4,56

VAIBHAV TULSYAN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 736/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 274

section 271(1)( c) and on facts of the instant cases it is held that penalty u/s. 271(1) ( c) has rightly levied by the AO in these cases. Therefore, levy of penalty of Rs. 23,56

DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S/ ARYAN MINNING & TRADING CORPORATION LTD, KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey & Sh. A.L.Sainidcit, M/S. Aryan Mining & Central Circle-2(2), Aayakar V Trading Corporation Ltd., P-1, Hide Lane, 8Th Floor, Bhawan, Poorva, 110 S Shantipally, Kolkata-700073. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aadca7247B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tulsyan, Fca & Ms. Sikha Agarwal, Aca 27.12.2018 Date Of Hearing 01.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

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

56,513 MT out of which 20,04,540 MT was stock of sub-grade fines which did not find mention in the annual audited accounts of the assessee company. The remaining fines which were not in the nature of sub-grade Fines were accounted in the stock records as well as financial records and its value was duly included

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHAS SASTRI, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1105/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

56,865/- 2003-2004 Rs. 6,04,485/- 2004-2005 Rs.26,14,026/- 2005-2006 Rs.11,24,214/- 3. The 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 on behalf

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

56,62,980/- after making certain petty additions. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAA were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and in response to the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings, a reply was filed by the assessee inviting the attention of the Assessing Officer to the following relevant portion of the disclosure petition filed

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee ITA No.: 2307/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.08.2025 by holding that he found no merit in the contention of the assessee that allotment of shares did not tantamount

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)

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)

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

M/S. SKYLARK FISCAL SEVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2259/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

56,626/-. In the assessment completed 1 A.Y. 2009-2010 M/s. Skylark Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 19.12.2011, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.13,27,872/- after making an addition of Rs.2,71,246/- by treating the trading liability of the assessee

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

section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (R. Kiruthiga) DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok”. 8. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 430/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

56,69,024/-. Whereas the third disclosure was made conditionally towards any discrepancy to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-which may be found in the books of accounts of the assessee . The assessee filed the return of income after reconciling various documents as seized by the search party. The assessee did not offer/disclose

DCIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI DILIP CHAND KANKARIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Cir 22 Kolkata..............................…………………………......................................Appellant 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria...................…………………………………………….........Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Ajxpk 5793 Q] Appearances By: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 24.01.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 45,02,635/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 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 Film Exhibition, Investments & Trading In Shares & Running A Service Centre. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 2,09,71,354/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.03.2015, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At A Loss Of Rs. 56,76,140/- After Making Additions Of Rs. 33,96,435/- & Rs. 1,16,91,865/- On Account Of 2 I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria

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

56,76,140/- after making additions of Rs. 33,96,435/- and Rs. 1,16,91,865/- on account of 2 I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria disallowance of brokerage on loan and disallowance of 50% of interest respectively. Consequently penalty proceedings were also initiated by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) and since

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)

Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, without appreciating that the said immunity is available only for the years for which due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act has not expired on the date of search, which was not satisfied in this case. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S GHOSH JEWELLERY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/KOL/2006[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2015AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ACA, DISA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

56,900/- of Silver Utensils The Learned AR argued that ultimately the addition in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was sustained by Learned CITA in respect of the aforesaid items. The Learned AR argued that no second appeal was preferred by the revenue against the relief granted by the Learned CITA as stated above and accordingly no penalty