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.

93 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 9(1)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,090Mumbai855Jaipur238Ahmedabad218Bangalore178Karnataka123Indore115Hyderabad100Kolkata93Pune93Chandigarh82Chennai76Raipur48Surat44Lucknow42Calcutta35Rajkot31Cuttack29Visakhapatnam26Amritsar26Allahabad26Agra25Cochin22Nagpur20Ranchi15Dehradun8Patna7Guwahati6Varanasi6SC5Jabalpur4Telangana3Jodhpur2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)80Addition to Income56Section 14745Section 6836Section 14835Section 153A34Penalty34Section 271(1)(c)31Section 115J

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

28
Section 271(1)25
Deduction23
Search & Seizure14

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

9,04,543/- in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. The Learned CITA held that as per the plain reading of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act on or after

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

271(1)(c) of the 1.T. Act is being initiated separately. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, total taxable income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.2,375,350/- Computation of Total Income is made as below: Income from Other Sources (as per return

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

9 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi been disclosed in the said return, then such income shall represent deemed concealment of income and assessee shall be liable to pay penalty under section 271." 22. Thus as per the existing Explanation 5A prior to the amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, if an Assessee

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

9 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi been disclosed in the said return, then such income shall represent deemed concealment of income and assessee shall be liable to pay penalty under section 271." 22. Thus as per the existing Explanation 5A prior to the amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, if an Assessee

ABU MANSUR ALI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 91/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri BaniBrata Dutta, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, an association of persons or a body of individuals or a local authority or an artificial juridical person shall be deemed to be a person, whether or not such person or body or authority

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

vi)Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT [19941 208 ITR 958 (Bom.); (vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal is that Scheme of the Income Tax Act contemplates that under section 144C of the income Tax Act, the ld. Assessing Officer

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2463/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

vi) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Matruprasad C Pandey, 59 Taxmann.com 428 held as under: Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission or cessation of trading liability (Cessation of trading liability) - Assessment year 2007 08 - Assessing Officer observed certain liabilities (sundry creditors) in balance sheet of assessee, which were very old - As assessee

SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C. XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1640/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld AO had merely made a tick mark without mentioning the specific charge of offence and without strucking off the relevant portion in the show cause notice as to whether the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT KUMAR SARAWGI, GIRIDIH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1688/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1640 To 1643/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld AO had merely made a tick mark without mentioning the specific charge of offence and without strucking off the relevant portion in the show cause notice as to whether the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the decision

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)

U/s 139(1) Ler.Dt 153A 153A (Rs.) 20/10/06 (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,59,126/- 1,91,154/- ------ 8,50,280/- 2003-04 8,57,623/- 2,35,877/- 3,61,600/- 14,55,100/- 2004-05 8,52,094/- 4,09,356/- 14,65,904/- 22,27,350/- 2005-06 10,50,831/0-

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

9,79,410 Add Income as per discussion in Sl.L above Rs. 37,060 Total Income Rs. 80,88,821 Rounded off u/s.288A to Rs.80,88,820/- only including short term capital gains of Rs.10,38,108/- which will be taxed at special rate of 10%. Assessed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Issue demand notice. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1

SRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISWAS,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CENTRA CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5/KOL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 274

vi) due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions of ss. 274 and 275; (vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states ‘penalty proceedings are initiated separately’ if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met. The prayers made

M/S. VIJAY WIRE INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1552/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Smt. Alka Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpg 9407 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & M/S. Vijay Wire Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv 2057 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

vi) on 02.12.2014 in response to notice u/s 143(2) dated 27.11.2014 Due to repeated non-compliances from the part of the assessee, the A.O forced to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) on 21.01.2015. In reply to the penalty notice, the assessee started that “the staff of the assessee firm Sri Anup Mondal has misplaced the notice

SMT. ALKA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1553/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Smt. Alka Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aczpg 9407 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & M/S. Vijay Wire Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata T/2A/1, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, 3, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. 700 067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfv 2057 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

vi) on 02.12.2014 in response to notice u/s 143(2) dated 27.11.2014 Due to repeated non-compliances from the part of the assessee, the A.O forced to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) on 21.01.2015. In reply to the penalty notice, the assessee started that “the staff of the assessee firm Sri Anup Mondal has misplaced the notice

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

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

vi) E Krishnappa vs ITO in ITA Nos. 313 to 315/Bang/2014 dated 14.8.2015 (Bangalore Tribunal) (vii) Ashwani Kumar Arora vs ACIT in ITA No. 844/Del/2014 dated 19.5.2016 (Delhi Tribunal) (viii) ITO vs Gope M Rochlani in ITA No. 7737/Mum/2011 dated 24.5.2013 (Mumbai Tribunal) 6. We find that the ld DR had relied upon on the decision

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment