NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under the IRDA Regulations read with Section

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under the IRDA Regulations read with Section

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under the IRDA Regulations read with Section

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) dated 27.09.2023 this amount of deduction claimed u/s 80G on account of CSR expenses was disallowed and added back to the total income. Also, penalty proceeding u/s 270A was initiated for underreporting of income. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee raised its objection on this issue before the Hon'ble DRP. The Hon'ble DRP- 2, New Delhi vide

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

section 270A of the Act. Ground 18: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 3. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal for both the Assessment

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

section 270A of the Act. Ground 18: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 3. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal for both the Assessment

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act at Rs. 30,85,965/-. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the discussion in this regard in the DRP’s order at pages 19 to 22 and fairly mentioned that the issue will need to be decided in light of the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. reported

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act at Rs. 30,85,965/-. In this regard, the Ld. AR pointed out the discussion in this regard in the DRP’s order at pages 19 to 22 and fairly mentioned that the issue will need to be decided in light of the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. reported

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

disallowance of a claim or addition to income does not automatically imply concealment or misreporting of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer's initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A without clear evidence of intent to evade tax is legally unsustainable. • Case Law: CIT v. Nath Bros. Exirn International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del): The Delhi High Court ruled that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P of the I.T. Act. Thus, the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.32,79,394/- is disallowed and added to the Total Income treating the same as "other income" u/s. 56 of the 1.T Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act other than the provisions of section 271AAB, direct that, in a case where the income determined includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A.” 5. The ld. Counsel has, therefore, contended that the word used in the section is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. He, therefore

MILK MANTRA DAIRY (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR.-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Milk Mantra Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Pan: Aagcm1112L Income-Tax Vs. 7Th Floor, Z Tower, Patia Circle-12(1) Nandan Kanan Road, Kolkata. Bhubaneswar-751024. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, Ars Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata In Appeal No. 491/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Dated 03.02.2020 Against The Assessment Order Of Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 13.01.2017. 2. There Is A Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. From The Condonation Petition, We Note That The Present Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 17.04.2020 Which Falls During The Lockdown Period On Account Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. It Is Requested By The Assessee That Since It Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, The Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Meritorious Disposal. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022, Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed That The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Computing The 2 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Further, A Period Of 90 Days Is Allowed After 28.02.2022 Vide Same Order. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs 6.8 crores under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act without giving any cognizance to the sharp valuation report and without appreciating that the shares have been issued at a price not exceeding the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares. 5. That on the facts

ST. PETER SCHOOL,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

Section 270A(9) provides for the imposition of penalty for misreporting of income, however, the provisions are applicable only in the cases where there is deliberate misreporting, such as misrepresentation of fats or making false entries in the books of account. In the present case, the assessee’s error in claiming depreciation was neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore

DAKSHIN KALIKATA SANSAD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), EXEMPTION,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1576/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Dakshin Kalikata Sansad,….…..……...……Appellant 93/1B, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aaatd5902A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

270A of the Act for under reporting of income and charged interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3 Dakshin Kalikata Sansad 3. The ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

270A sub section 1 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the records and Anita Basak; A.Y. 2018-19 therefore, the ld. AO was not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the accounts. Accordingly, the books of accounts were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and the income of the assessee was estimated

PRAN BEVERAGES (INDIA) P. LTD.,,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

disallowance of expenditure u/s 37 of the Act on account of interest on late payment of service tax and excise duty. The proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was carried out and it was contended by the assessee that the addition is only in the nature of under reporting of income and not mis-reporting of income. Prayer was made

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAMBOO VILLA, CALCUTTA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

1,73,42,542 = 55,49,613/ Amount to be treated as income from other sources u/s.56(2)(x)(b) is Rs.39,49,613/- (Rs.55,49,613/- - Rs.16,00,000/-) Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs.39,49,613/- to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income