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

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) iv) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) v) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) 5. The assessee had claimed that the surcharge should be levied depending upon

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee

SRINIWAS BANWARILAL SARAF CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1632/Kol/2018 Assessment Year :

1. This assessee’s appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(E)-Kolkata’s order dated 07.06.2018 passed in case no. CIT(E)/Kol/10E/554/2016-17/17-18/729 rejecting its registration involving proceedings u/s 254/12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties qua the sole issue of assessee’s section 12AA registration as a charitable trust. Case file perused

BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the I.T.A. No.: 848/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Batanagar Education and Research Trust. name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science,de filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 6,41,07,639/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, notice

M/S GAURISHANKAR BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

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

271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated. During the Scrutiny proceedings, it was observed that form the details of Rent Paid by the assessee firm, it is noted that the assessee had paid rent amount of Rs.6,22,961.60/- to the the party, namely, Kolkata Port Trust. However, it was learnt form

SAMPAT MAL PARAKH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and immediately on\nbeing made aware, the copy of the order was downloaded and\nimmediately forwarded to the consultant for filing of the appeal before\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.\n4.0 In this context, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of Sreenivas