M/S. OM STEEL INDIA,HOWRAH vs. ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

section 271(1)(C) of the IT. Act dated 25/03/2022 by ACIT/ITO, National Faceless. Assessment Centre for the assessment year 2011-12 and subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeal) NFAS dated 06/05/2024, is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld Appellate Authority vide order dated 06/05/2024 was wrong

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel(2016) 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). 24. It is further submitted that the findings of the AO in the concluding portion of the order of assessment (Page-28) was as follows: ……there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel(2016) 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). 24. It is further submitted that the findings of the AO in the concluding portion of the order of assessment (Page-28) was as follows: ……there

PRAMOD KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the impugned penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, thus, has come in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the impugned penalty of Rs.4,61,771/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, thus, has come in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. counsel

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

RAMESHWAR SHAW,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 48(3),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 841/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Rameshwar Shaw,....................................Appellant 12/5, Musalmanpara Lane, Banta, Howrah-711101 [Pan: Amaps0893D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-48(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2024

bogus sundry creditors, Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271(1)(b) initiated separately. The ld. D.R. further argued that in any case there was no verification was done. The entire sundry creditors are non- 6 Rameshwar Shaw verified from the end of the Revenue. So, further investigation should be required in relation to the sundry creditors

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

bogus purchase claim of the assessee and added with the returned income of the assessee on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the said sum of Rs. 18,85,520/- is considered as undisclosed income of the assessee and assessment is made accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated for such

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department, the assessee was found

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) is also initiated. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee had arranged pre- arranged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 63,76,486/- through the entry operators who facilitates such accommodation entry on receipt of commission only. As reported by the Investigation Directorate, the entry operators charge a commission @ 1% of the amount of Loss

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

DHAR & COMPANY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) of the Act dated\n25.04.2024, it was realized that CIT (A) has passed the order which\nwas not communicated to the previous management and thereafter,\nsteps were taken and appeal was filed with a delay of 234 days. The\nLd. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that since, the delay in\nfiling the appeal

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus and unexplained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of 1.T. Act., but the assessee failed to put forward any explanation till the date of passing of this order. From the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is evident that assessee has no explanation to offer in this regard which reveals that the assessee