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.

101 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi781Mumbai741Ahmedabad213Jaipur160Bangalore158Chennai156Karnataka128Raipur105Hyderabad101Kolkata101Indore78Pune75Chandigarh53Rajkot48Visakhapatnam40Calcutta35Lucknow27Allahabad26Surat23Cuttack22Guwahati21Amritsar19Patna15Cochin12Agra9Nagpur9Ranchi6Jabalpur4Dehradun3Panaji3Telangana2Rajasthan1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 143(3)83Section 271(1)(c)70Addition to Income56Section 200A48Section 271A38Penalty38Section 6837Section 271(1)

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

94(7) of the Act of Rs.1,05,747/- and should have added it in the computation under the head Short Term Capital Gain. Thus, according to AO, it was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the computation of tax sought to be evaded calculated as per Explanation (4) to section

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

33
Section 115J30
Deduction26
TDS20

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271ASection 292B

7. Further, he argued that the assessee having responded through its authorised representative and having participated in the proceedings cannot be allowed to turn around and raised objection before the Tribunal seeking invalidation of the proceedings initiated by the authority alleging issuance notice u/s271AAA. If such defect is not allowed to be cured, or treated as invalid

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1928/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271ASection 292B

7. Further, he argued that the assessee having responded through its authorised representative and having participated in the proceedings cannot be allowed to turn around and raised objection before the Tribunal seeking invalidation of the proceedings initiated by the authority alleging issuance notice u/s271AAA. If such defect is not allowed to be cured, or treated as invalid

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

94,000 2005-06 91,91,000 2006-07 38,55,000 2007-08 66,71,000 2008-09 12,62,61,040 ------------------- 15,00,01,986 ------------------- 3 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi The head of the group Shri S.K. Sarawgi gave a sworn statement on the date of search

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

94,000 2005-06 91,91,000 2006-07 38,55,000 2007-08 66,71,000 2008-09 12,62,61,040 ------------------- 15,00,01,986 ------------------- 3 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi The head of the group Shri S.K. Sarawgi gave a sworn statement on the date of search

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)

94,75,280/- ---- 2006-07 82,00,000/- 2,23,45,095/- NIL 2007-08 4,75,00,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea of the Assessee that on analysis of the income disclosed for the above

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)

94,75,280/- ---- 2006-07 82,00,000/- 2,23,45,095/- NIL 2007-08 4,75,00,000/- 4,23,38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea of the Assessee that on analysis of the income disclosed for the above

SUKHBIR SINGH DHUPIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

94(7) of the Act. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act was levied to the extent of Rs. 69,318/- vide order dated 25.3.2009. The said penalty was upheld by the Learned CITA. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- “1. For that the penalty u/s 271

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

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent

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

94,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, an order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by assessing total income at Rs. 86,11,216/-. Penalty proceedings for levying of 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

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

94,908/- Other Income (including disclosure) Rs. 4,60,28,734/- -------------------------- Rs. 22,72,396/- After deducting administrative cost of Rs. 3,70,13,193/- , finance charges of Rs. 1,05,57,283/- and depreciation of Rs. 22,28,085/-, the assessee furnished a loss return of Rs. 4,71,01,220/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A

SHRI KEDAR NATH DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

94,769/- 2005-06 Rs.23,26,842/- Rs.4,32,934/- Rs.27,59,776/- 2006-07 Rs.2,68,042/- -------- Rs.2,68,042/- III. Break up of Assessed Income & Additions made head wise : Asst.Year Commission Addition on Profit on Addition on Total Income account of sales account of Addition Assessed the assessed the profit (5=2+4) commission 2002-03 Rs.7

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

7 months from the end of the month in which disclosure was made. The assessee had duly paid the entire taxes together with interest on the additional income offered in the disclosure petition immediately and much before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence it could be safely concluded that the notice u/s

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

7 months from the end of the month in which disclosure was made. The assessee had duly paid the entire taxes together with interest on the additional income offered in the disclosure petition immediately and much before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence it could be safely concluded that the notice u/s

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

94,382/- out of which Rs.6,53,402 was added as income furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act and imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.1,58.428/-. 5. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

94,382/- out of which Rs.6,53,402 was added as income furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act and imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.1,58.428/-. 5. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1832/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.T.Yadava, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

94,382/- out of which Rs.6,53,402 was added as income furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act and imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.1,58.428/-. 5. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub- section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section