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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,016Mumbai943Ahmedabad253Jaipur212Bangalore143Karnataka124Indore114Raipur114Pune110Kolkata106Hyderabad100Chennai95Chandigarh89Surat52Rajkot47Visakhapatnam35Lucknow34Calcutta34Allahabad30Nagpur29Cochin22Amritsar19Kerala14Dehradun12Guwahati12Agra8Varanasi6Patna6Jabalpur5Cuttack5Panaji4SC3Ranchi2Telangana2Rajasthan1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)89Section 143(3)88Section 27472Addition to Income53Penalty47Section 271A42Section 271(1)37Section 25031Section 263

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 106 · Page 1 of 6

31
Section 14730
Deduction26
Disallowance21

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

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

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

penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Since identical issue is involved in all the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589.” 5. On the issue of initiation of penalty and recording of satisfaction, we have heard both the sides and gone through facts and circumstances

S.D.CONSTRUCTIONS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 S. D. Constructions……...............................................................................................Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aawfs5599N] Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..................................................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 01, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 15, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.4,58,376/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee, In The Present Case, Is A Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Building. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.09.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.38,97,950/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was 2

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

58,376/- u/s 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee in respect of an addition of Rs.14,83,420/- made to the total income of the assessee. 3. The penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before

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

58,1571- was made. Out of the total jewellery found, jewellery of net weight 331.50 (being item nos. BKT/05 and BKT/07) valued at Rs. 5,10,8701-has been owned up by the assessee and the same has been considered as application of funds out of his income disclosed u/s 132(4). The remaining jewellery items of net weight

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

58% (c) 60% to below 566,838.900 31,528.110 535,310.790 62% (d) 62% to below 351,972,590 227,558.330 277,133.320 302,397.600 65% Total (FINES) 2,355,513.148 1,367,462.730 479,545.840 3,244,430,038 Grand Total 2,366,810.41 2,419,543.38 …….6,774.49 3,249,579.30 8. According to ld AR, from

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1534/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar ACAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)

58,42,500/-. The Learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the income disclosed u/s 132(4) of the Act pursuant to the search at 100% of the tax on income disclosed at Rs. 4,99,00,000/- for the Asst Year 2006-07. 3.1. Asst Year 2007-08 The facts and circumstances under which

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271A

section 271AAB, penalty proceedings have been initiated. 3. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the penalty levied u/s 271AAB being 10% of total income declared by the appellant in its disclosure petition. 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271A

section 271AAB, penalty proceedings have been initiated. 3. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the penalty levied u/s 271AAB being 10% of total income declared by the appellant in its disclosure petition. 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year

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

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

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

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

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)

58,76,470/- 60,05,770/- 1,29,300/- 2007-08 2,27,60,190/- NIL 2,27,60,190 2,27,61,190/- NIL TOTAL 3,65,11,550/- 22,13,854/- 3,87,25,404/- 2.5. In the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.1,29,3900/- on the basis of seized

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

58,731.81. 1.2 Reconciliation of the Income & expenditure account showed that If the assessee concealed his income and also filed inaccurate particulars of Income In respect of capital gain from sale of mutual fund/ immovable property Bank interest expenses on repair and maintenance. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is therefore being initiated separately. 7. The next issue before

M/S FLOW & FLUID CONTROL CENTRE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-34(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.R. Singh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c ) was accordingly leviable on the merits of the case. Great stress was laid on behalf of the assessee upon the finding that the inaccurate particulars had been furnished 5 Flow & Fluid Control Centre, AY 2010-11 was inconsistent with the charge of concealment of income. If the income was concealed or not returned, there could