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.

340 results for “reassessment”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,482Mumbai1,477Jaipur473Ahmedabad446Bangalore439Chennai344Kolkata340Pune256Hyderabad232Indore142Rajkot134Raipur124Chandigarh122Surat99Cuttack92Cochin72Amritsar70Agra64Ranchi63Nagpur60Lucknow53Patna50Guwahati49Dehradun43Visakhapatnam41Karnataka41Allahabad29SC24Jodhpur22Telangana21Jabalpur11Panaji11Calcutta6Varanasi5Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Rajasthan1J&K1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Uttarakhand1Kerala1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 250307Section 147113Section 14887Section 271(1)(c)79Addition to Income52Section 143(3)49Penalty39Section 27438Section 26328Reassessment

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied

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

Showing 1–20 of 340 · Page 1 of 17

...
24
Section 143(2)23
Reopening of Assessment21
ITA 1090/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, suance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2372/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2373/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 International Seaport (Haldia) Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata. Private Limited C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Vs. Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aaaci 9468 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Dr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

S.D.CONSTRUCTIONS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 243/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 S. D. Constructions……...............................................................................................Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aawfs5599N] Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..................................................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 01, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 15, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.4,58,376/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee, In The Present Case, Is A Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Building. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.09.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.38,97,950/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was 2

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

TEXMACO RAIL & ENGINEERING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2288/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.................................…………………………...................Appellant Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 056. [Pan: Aabct 2592 E] Vs Dcit, Circle – 6(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 07, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 06.09.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 2,32,318/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Work Contracts For Railway & Others. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By The Assessee On 27.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,99,43,540/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 12,08,04,960/- After Making Inter Alia An Addition Of Rs. 7,16,043/- On 2 Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

M/S CORONATION REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

SAIKAT GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2654/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. JAYASHREE JAYAKAR MOHANKA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE LALIT MOHANKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1345/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. JAYASHREE JAYAKAR MOHANKA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE LALIT MOHANKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1344/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

SRI KAUSHIK MUKHERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 61, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2233/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

M/S. SOURENEE LEAVES (P) LTD., [FORMERLY M/S. SOURENI PLANTATION (P) LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

SHRI KAMAL KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

APOORV INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment

M/S. SKYLARK FISCAL SEVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2259/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment