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.

909 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,772Mumbai3,858Ahmedabad1,097Kolkata909Bangalore815Jaipur814Pune743Chennai578Indore565Surat474Hyderabad439Chandigarh353Raipur225Rajkot218Amritsar205Visakhapatnam163Cochin162Lucknow156Karnataka150Cuttack129Nagpur127Agra85Allahabad77Ranchi77Guwahati76Patna64Dehradun62Jabalpur47Panaji43Jodhpur40Calcutta35Varanasi19Kerala15SC12Telangana8Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 250231Section 271(1)(c)112Section 27469Section 143(3)54Addition to Income51Penalty50Section 14835Section 14734Section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment cannot be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c). From the above discussion, we note that in the assessment order the AO has neither recorded satisfaction to levy penalty against the assessee u/s. 271

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

Showing 1–20 of 909 · Page 1 of 46

...
26
Section 153A23
Disallowance13
Deduction10

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act or from the assessment order. In response to this, the Learned DR relied on the provisions of Section 271(1B) of the Act which is introduced with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989. He relied on various case laws in support of his various contentions stated supra. 8

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

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. In this regard reliance can be placed

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)

8 of 14 correct by the Department, therefore, in our considered opinion and following the ratio laid down by the various legal pronouncement the same cannot be termed to be concealment and is beyond the scope of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) and , therefore, in these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the Learned CITA wsa justified in deleting

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

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

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

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1090/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

8. The next argument that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which ent that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought

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

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made by the assessee was with reference to seized

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 444/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once 2 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made

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)

8 Deepak Choudhury 6.4. We hold that the immunity provided in Clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act is available to all the assessment years prior to the year of search if the conditions stipulated thereon are satisfied. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court

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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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

8. Aggrieved by such order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-(A). Before him the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the AO during the assessment proceeding u/s. 153A as well as penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act. The specific finding of the CIT-(A) was that the assessee concealed

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)

8 Narendra N.Thacker (PB) (2012) 24 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- “Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penatly – For Concealmentof income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting as a result of search assessments made under

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders