BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

38 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai489Delhi360Raipur112Jaipur109Ahmedabad94Chennai71Bangalore70Hyderabad63Pune62Chandigarh52Indore50Rajkot46Kolkata38Allahabad30Surat26Visakhapatnam20Lucknow19Nagpur18Guwahati11Cuttack10Amritsar10Varanasi6Patna6Agra3Panaji3Dehradun2Cochin2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 25031Section 143(3)28Section 14724Addition to Income21Deduction14Section 14A13Section 6812Section 271(1)(c)12Section 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

58,785/- being @8% of 2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 133(6)10
Double Taxation/DTAA8
TDS8

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

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

58,785/- being @8% of 2,32,34,819/-, as additional income over and above the income disclosed in the return. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the addition confirmed. While giving effect to the appeal order, the Assessing Officer, suo moto also issued a penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271B of the Act dated

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

58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (PAN: ALEPS2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Amitabha Sanyal, Assessee Respondent by : Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

u/s 148 was the assessed income of the assessee. It is to be seen whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed when the returned income in the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act and the assessed income is the same. Similar issue arose

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1827/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated in the assessment order. In the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) was issued as it was noticed during assessment proceedings that as per cash book of M/s Samridhi Construction for a period of 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, the assessee had negative cash balance on different occasion. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA vs. POSITIVE DEVCON PVT. LTD., SONARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1123/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) are attracted. • Further, it is not clear whether the penalty is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. • Thus, according to him, the Ld. AO has simply levied huge penalty on the ground that no further appeal has been filed. No effort has been made to make out a case for levying penalty u/s

JHUMA CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(3) Jhuma Chatterjee Aaykar Bhavan, Opposite Bf-151 Ground Floor, Sector-1, Ramakrishna School, Po Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064 Vs. Asansol, Pin-713305, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepc3975K Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 274(1)

u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein addition of ₹ 21,62,303/- was made in respect of difference between market value Jhuma Chatterjee; A.Y. 2014-15 and value of the property. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, were initiated for concealment of income by issuing notice dated

ARUN KUMAR BOSE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 465/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.465/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arun Kumar Bose................................................................................…..…Appellant 9, Rajani Kant Sarani, Hakimpara, Siliguri. [Pan: Ahvpb8055A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri...…..…...........................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Adv. & S. Mandal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 9Th, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 58 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Appellant Is A Senior Citizen & Was Effected By Covid & Therefore, Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

58 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been mentioned that the appellant is a senior citizen and was effected by Covid and therefore, could not file the appeal in time. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. Assessment

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. Assessment

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 1998/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 2646/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

58 days in filing the appeal and admit it for adjudication on merits.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

58,674/- 69,06,707/- 61,20,430/- 68,02,948/- 63,810/ 30,654/- income - Gross Total 3,27,2661- 1,13,194/- 5,01,814/- 0 0 0 0 Income Total Income 3,27,2701- 1,13,1901 5.01,8101- 0 0 0 0 Income @ 98,181/- 33,958/- 1,50,543/- 0 0 0 0 normal rates

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, DR
Section 10(38)Section 127(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

58,96,582/- was made to the income of the assessee on account of Long-Term Capital Gain on sale of script of Surabhi Chemical & Investments Ltd. Which was claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the burden of proof

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

ITA 163/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately. [Add: Rs. 46,75,71,359/-] ’ Hence, the learned PCIT failed to appreciate the facts of the case and erred in his understanding that the said provision for NPA relates to computation of income under normal provisions and that the assessee is not allowed

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

58 of the paper book-2 which comprised the details of unsecured loans for the FY 2011-12 and at Sl. No. 34 the loan from SFTPL appears which showed that assessee had taken Rs. 50,00,000/- as unsecured loan on which interest of Rs.4,19,178/- was provided and a TDS of Rs.41,918/- was also deducted