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.

482 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 6(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,322Mumbai1,876Ahmedabad513Kolkata482Jaipur446Bangalore431Indore309Chennai292Pune272Hyderabad238Chandigarh196Surat153Karnataka144Raipur96Rajkot90Amritsar82Cochin81Visakhapatnam67Lucknow61Allahabad53Nagpur46Calcutta37Cuttack35Ranchi33Agra29Patna28Guwahati21Dehradun16Kerala14Panaji13Jodhpur13Jabalpur12Varanasi11SC10Telangana6Rajasthan3Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 250286Section 271(1)(c)136Section 274100Penalty51Addition to Income43Section 143(3)35Section 234E32Section 14729Section 271

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1188/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

6. As regards the second contention relating to the CIT’s power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding in exercise of the revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act is concerned, the present appeal has been filed against the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s

Showing 1–20 of 482 · Page 1 of 25

...
26
Section 6820
Undisclosed Income12
Cash Deposit11

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1190/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

6. As regards the second contention relating to the CIT’s power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding in exercise of the revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act is concerned, the present appeal has been filed against the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1189/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

6. As regards the second contention relating to the CIT’s power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding in exercise of the revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act is concerned, the present appeal has been filed against the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1191/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

6. As regards the second contention relating to the CIT’s power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding in exercise of the revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act is concerned, the present appeal has been filed against the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1606/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 271A

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act isparimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

6 recording of such satisfaction and has thus to be read along with the assessment order and not independent of it. In our view, the assessee has rightly been made aware of the initiation of penalty proceedings and it for reasons best known to it choose to remain silent and failed to offer any explanation during the penalty proceedings

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

III, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 81/CC-VII/CIT(A), C-I/09-10 & 82/CC-VII/CIT(A),C-I/09-10 dated 07-03-2011 and 04-03-2011 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively against the orders of penalty levied u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). ITA No. 921/Kol/2011

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

6 of 2010 dated 3.9.2015, wherein the questions raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as below:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has committed error in applying the provisions of the Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby committed error

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

6 of 2010 dated 3.9.2015, wherein the questions raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as below:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has committed error in applying the provisions of the Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby committed error

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)

6 of 2010 dated 3.9.2015, wherein the questions raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as below:- “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has committed error in applying the provisions of the Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby committed error

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)

6 Deepak Choudhury “That the concept of a voluntary return of income may be important in penalty proceedings initiated in the normal assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) or 147 of the Act but not u/s 153A of the Act. When accepted by the AO then there is no concealment of income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1

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

III, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed

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

III, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 575/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 569/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 568/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 565/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 577/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 586/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 582/KOL/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case, no addition has attained finality ultimately. Income