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

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

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 at (b

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

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

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 at (b

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

b) any other security created and issued by the Government] in such form and for such of the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed; The Government securities which were sold during the year were stocks being of the nature described in clause (i) to section 2(a) of the Public Debt Act, 1944. The third proviso to section

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

gain for all other provisions and is eligible for set off u/s 74 against brought forward loss from long term capital asset. 6.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Panel while confirming the action of Ld. AO grossly erred in not applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the decision

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income is as under :- 1) Bank interest Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) post-amendment will be read in the manner indicated above.” Pointing out the above observations, it was contended that the order of assessment in the present case does not spell out any satisfaction as is contemplated in the decisions referred to above. The AO accepted whatever evidence the Assessee produced and also the offer of the Assessee

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

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

capital gain arising from the sale of shares of Jackson Investment Limited by treating the same as bogus. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show- cause notices issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd is factually incorrect. It is relevant to reproduce herein below the Explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. Explanation 1 to section 271(1) ( c): “Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act- (A) such

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains of Rs.6,51,937/- and levied penalty of Rs.60,173/- thereon. But the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground of concealment of income. Hence, there is a basic difference on the charge attributed on the assessee by the revenue. In these circumstances, penalty could not be imposed on the assessee. In this

SRI MAHESH KUMAR MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

gains for purchase of an under construction flat under the said section. I therefore find that the assessee sold the Oat in Assessment Year 2012-2013 and paid taxes on the said income also. Thus, the purchase and sale of the fiat cannot be disputed for some minor differences in the Boucher as mentioned by the Assessing Officer

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

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)

B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Amitabha Sanyal, Assessee Respondent

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year:2009-10 ACIT, Circle-29, V/s. Prakash Kumar Mohta Aayakar Bhawvan, (HUF), 7, Ronaldshay Dakshin, 2 Gariahat Road, Kolkata-27 Road, South, Kolkata-68 [PAN No. AADHP 6057 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant

MAHAVIR PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

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

capital gain on sale of shares. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue u/s 132(1) of the Act in Shyma Sel & Power Ltd. Group on 26.03.2010. The Assessee was also subjected to a search as he was part of the said group. Consequent to the search, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were initiated

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

b) Whether the assessee actually claimed the deduction in the AY 1997- 98, is not material. There may be a huge depreciation of business loss or both, due to which there may not be any business profit to claim deduction u/s 80IA cannot change as it has been specifically defined in the act and in the case of the assessee

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

b) Whether the assessee actually claimed the deduction in the AY 1997- 98, is not material. There may be a huge depreciation of business loss or both, due to which there may not be any business profit to claim deduction u/s 80IA cannot change as it has been specifically defined in the act and in the case of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

b) Whether the assessee actually claimed the deduction in the AY 1997- 98, is not material. There may be a huge depreciation of business loss or both, due to which there may not be any business profit to claim deduction u/s 80IA cannot change as it has been specifically defined in the act and in the case of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

b) Whether the assessee actually claimed the deduction in the AY 1997- 98, is not material. There may be a huge depreciation of business loss or both, due to which there may not be any business profit to claim deduction u/s 80IA cannot change as it has been specifically defined in the act and in the case of the assessee