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.

136 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,062Mumbai927Ahmedabad272Jaipur242Bangalore219Kolkata136Karnataka135Pune116Indore99Chennai94Hyderabad72Raipur62Chandigarh56Surat56Rajkot40Amritsar39Cochin37Allahabad36Visakhapatnam36Calcutta35Lucknow30Nagpur20Guwahati16Cuttack15Dehradun14Kerala14Varanasi9Agra8Jabalpur7SC5Panaji3Telangana3Patna2Rajasthan2Ranchi2Jodhpur2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income64Section 271(1)(c)58Section 14740Penalty38Section 14837Section 25033Section 6824Section 271(1)

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

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7

24
Disallowance24
Section 115J21
Deduction20

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

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

57,900/- in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. The Learned CITA held that as per the plain reading of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act on or after

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

57 shows that assessing officer has not made a specific charge. The notice so issued is illegal and therefore not sustainable in law: Reliance is placed on judgment of Shri Vivek Chugh ITA No.636/Ind/2017 dated 28.03.2019 (Indore Tribunal), (CL 120- 123) in which it was held that: .... notice ....... 7. A bare reading of the above notice suggests that the notice

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 736/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

Section 10(32)Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

57,985/- only which was claimed as exempted u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Note: The Assessing Officer by mistake has recorded the Section 10(32) of the Act in place of 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued upon the assessee Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) dated 27.01.2011 was served upon

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1244/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

57,900/- M/s. Jain Infraprojects Ltd. Asst. Year 2007-08 5,96,176/- Asst. Year 2008-09 12,89,608/- 18,85,784/- ITA No.1244/11 Manoj Kumar jain & Sons (HUF) The additional disclosure made in case of M/s Bengal Construction Co. and M/s Jain Infraprojects Ltd. are being considered in their respective assessment. In the course of assessment proceedings

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

57,900/- M/s. Jain Infraprojects Ltd. Asst. Year 2007-08 5,96,176/- Asst. Year 2008-09 12,89,608/- 18,85,784/- ITA No.1244/11 Manoj Kumar jain & Sons (HUF) The additional disclosure made in case of M/s Bengal Construction Co. and M/s Jain Infraprojects Ltd. are being considered in their respective assessment. In the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a ) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 15Section 2Section 271A

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). 5 Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd, AY 2012-13 (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section

M/S RISHI F. L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68Section 69C

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

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

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 income assessable in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter he prepared a detailed computation of income available on pages no. 53 to 55 of the record

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)

section 271(1)(c) for the following reason given in his impugned order: “I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant’s submissions. The penalty was imposed in relation to two disallowances i.e. brokerage of Rs. 33,96,435/- and interest of Rs. 1,16,91,865/-. The A.O. disallowed brokerage of Rs. 33,96,435/- paid

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)

57,672 1,31,16,963 4.2. The Learned AO levied penalty in respect of income returned and assessed u/s 153A of the Act on the ground that but for the search, the assessee would not have come forward for disclosure of the undisclosed income. On first appeal, the Learned CITA in his order u/s 250 of the Act dated

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

57,283/- and depreciation of Rs. 22,28,085/-, the assessee furnished a loss return of Rs. 4,71,01,220/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A / 143(3) of the Act on 11.5.2011 by treating the share trading loss as speculation loss in terms of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act and after making minor disallowances and determining

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)

U/s 139(1) Ler.Dt 153A 153A (Rs.) 20/10/06 (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,59,126/- 1,91,154/- ------ 8,50,280/- 2003-04 8,57,623/- 2,35,877/- 3,61,600/- 14,55,100/- 2004-05 8,52,094/- 4,09,356/- 14,65,904/- 22,27,350/- 2005-06 10,50,831/0-

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty u/s 271 (I )(c) is imposable. 8. Regarding the concealment by introduction

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1832/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

57,000/- by treating deemed interest on the advances made to some parties in connection with construction work. The assessing officer after passing the order U/s 154 of the Act, rectifying some genuine mistake, has complicated the matter and initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has produced the bank statements regarding loan

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

57,000/- by treating deemed interest on the advances made to some parties in connection with construction work. The assessing officer after passing the order U/s 154 of the Act, rectifying some genuine mistake, has complicated the matter and initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has produced the bank statements regarding loan

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

57,000/- by treating deemed interest on the advances made to some parties in connection with construction work. The assessing officer after passing the order U/s 154 of the Act, rectifying some genuine mistake, has complicated the matter and initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has produced the bank statements regarding loan