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 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,295Mumbai980Ahmedabad246Jaipur210Chennai191Indore174Bangalore163Kolkata155Hyderabad140Karnataka123Raipur110Pune99Visakhapatnam71Chandigarh64Cuttack56Cochin47Lucknow38Calcutta35Amritsar34Rajkot32Surat28Allahabad28Ranchi25Dehradun18Kerala14Guwahati12Nagpur11Patna10Panaji9Jodhpur8Jabalpur8Agra5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)221Section 274124Section 234E73Penalty65Section 143(3)63Addition to Income46Section 200A32Section 271(1)27Section 115J

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

U/S 271(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Deduction24
Section 25022
Disallowance16

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

U/S 271(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 587/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act, has observed as under:- [Para 59):… "Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 588/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act, has observed as under:- [Para 59):… "Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 589/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act, has observed as under:- [Para 59):… "Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section

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

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

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

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

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1183/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court followed its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) in which it was held that imposing of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that show

BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T-CIRCLE-I, KOLKATA, SILIGURI

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2482/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Miss Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

73,583/- [3.19% of Rs. 23,06,676/ is added back to the assesse as undisclosed income from suppressed sales.” 5. The AO ultimately added the aforesaid sum to the total income of the assessee. 6. In the order of the assessment the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Nevertheless the AO proceeded

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 273B of the Act which reads as under:- “[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1938/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant pointed out that since inception "contribution from shops" was being assessed as "business income" as claimed in return. Mere reporting of income Assessment Year: 2005-2006 under a different head would not characterize the particulars reported as "inaccurate" to attract levy of penalty under section 271

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GALLON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 of the Act, has observed as under: “(Para 59)…… Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section

BIJAY KUMAR SHAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80D

73,270/-, loss on theft amounting to Rs.26,758/-, loss on sale amounting to Rs.1,47,152/-, disallowance of office rent amounting to Rs.37,500/- and disallowance of deduction under section 80D amounting to Rs.1,054/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response

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

73,55,290/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act was initiated by the Learned AO. 5. The assessee pleaded before the Learned AO that the assessee had made disclosure petition u/s 132(4) of the Act soon after the search. The assessee pleaded that the said disclosure of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for the Asst Year

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

73 Taxmann 241 (Kar), The High Court of Karnataka following the decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxmann 423/359 ITR 565 (kar) held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice u/s

JHANTU GHOSH,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73,990/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 30.08.2017, an addition of Rs.9,36,897/- was 1 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jhantu Ghosh made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee on account of profit @ 8% on the undisclosed sale of Rs.1,17,11,217/-. Penalty

SANTI RAM MONDAL ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 659/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 of the Act, has observed as under: “(Para 59)…… Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section

SANTI RAM MONDAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-53(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 658/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 274 of the Act, has observed as under: “(Para 59)…… Though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section