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.

140 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ TDSclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi869Mumbai812Bangalore262Ahmedabad177Chennai156Kolkata140Jaipur134Raipur106Hyderabad87Pune81Indore61Surat50Chandigarh47Nagpur42Rajkot37Karnataka29Visakhapatnam27Amritsar21Lucknow17Cochin15Dehradun13Allahabad10Panaji10Jabalpur8Jodhpur7Guwahati7Patna6Agra5Cuttack4Ranchi2SC1Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 234E73Section 4065Section 143(3)60TDS53Deduction52Addition to Income49Disallowance33Section 200A32Section 25029Section 271(1)(c)

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alo u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the draft assessment lead ng with the draft assessment leads to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7

27
Section 115J25
Penalty23

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 on this cash component of Rs 740.90 lacs u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for the Asst Year 2010-11, we find that it is not in dispute that the assessee had received the cash component of the subject mentioned transaction amounting to Rs. 7,40,90,000/- as per the MOU dated 4.8.2005 in Asst Years

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

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

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

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

TDS for Rs. 8,34,119/-. Thereafter penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for each addition. Being aggrieved

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

TDS provisions are not attracted. 13.7 In view of the foregoing discussion I have no other course left open but to disallow the provision for liabilities for expenses to the tune of Rs. 89,33,450/- and add the same back to total income. Since the assessee has concealed this income, penalty proceedings u/s 271

I.T.O WD - 28(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAN VIJAY SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2004-05

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

Section 194ISection 271C

u/s. 194-I of the Act. Respectfully following such precedents, penalty imposed on account of non-deduction of TDS on the payment of rent will not stand in terms of provision of Sec. 271

VIVEKANANDA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 875/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: The Cit- It Was Contended That There Was No Deliberate Omission On The Part Of Assesse In Concealing The Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Placed Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Cases Of T. Ashok Pai Vs. Cit Reported In 292 Itr 11(2007) (Sc) & Cit Vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd Reported In 322 Itr (201) 158(Sc) Respectively.

For Appellant: D.K. Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80I

TDS, entails levy of interest and penalty under different provisions of the Act and certainly not u/s. 271(1)( c), which

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARBANSLAL MALHOTRA & SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: The A.O. 04. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That It Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 27L(L)(C) Of The Act. 05. That The Department Craves Leave To Add, Modify Or Alter Any Of The Above Ground(S) Of Appeal And/Or Adduce Additional Evidence At The Time Of Hearing Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri V.N Purohit, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 27l(1)

TDS certificates issued by the State Bank of India was also found correct. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that even though the AO had made addition in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the appeal is pending before the ITAT, but as far as the penalty u/s 271

ITO, WD-3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SWAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, BIRBHUM

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that during the course of scrutiny as per AIR information the AO found that the assessee has made investment in mutual fund of Rs. 10,50,000/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the A.Y.2 010-11. At the hearing stage

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2128/KOL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

271(1) ( c) has been given without striking out which specific offence is proposed to be charged against the assessee) as well as against levy of sec. 271AAB of the Act vide notice dt. 31.3.2016 ( refer to page 63 of paper book) and, thereafter, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act after observing as under

D.CI.T.(TDS), CIRCLE-58, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.J.EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 2569/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Sudipta Guha, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271CSection 273BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

penalty u/s. 271 C is sustainable in view of deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. ITA No.2569/Kol/2013AC-JM M/s. J.J Exporters Ltd 1 3. Brief facts are that the AO by an order dtd. 28-12-2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act had disallowed an amount of Rs.3,84,07,558/- u/s

M/S BAYNEE INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A Confirmed Some Of The Additions & Some Of The Additions Were Partly Allowed. Thereafter, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings By Issuing Notice On 31-12-09 U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 Of The Act. Thereby, He Imposed A Penalty Of Rs.14,71,134/- U/Sec 271(1) ( C) Of The Act. 1 M/S. Baynee Industries

For Appellant: S/Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 271(1)Section 274Section 40Section 68Section 69

TDS disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not merely a disallowance but it is proved bogus also. The AO has chosen to disallow it U/S 40(a)(ia) hence it is also a concealment. (viii) Considering the above facts of the case I find no infirmity with the order of the AO and the same is confirmed and the appeal

TEJBIR SINGH BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1476/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: The Ao, Which Was Accepted & Accordingly, The Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.5,95,310/- & Assessee Paid A Sum Of Rs.3,410/- Towards Tax.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Ganguli, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 154Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS on the undisclosed income. This is hard to believe. From the above facts it is clearly established that appellant deliberately not shown the income. Therefore, I am of the view that the AO rightly imposed the penalty of Rs.27,225/- u/s. 271

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR.3(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 490/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 414/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 194ISection 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried