BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13, related to alleged bogus sales treated as unexplained cash credit. Similar issues arose in other assessment years concerning disallowances

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus sales and other disallowances is sustainable when the assessee has disclosed all particulars

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 10,81,787/-\nconsequent to disallowance of Rs. 33,33,704/- being PF and ESI contributions paid\nbeyond the stipulated period when such a disallowance does not lead to any concealment\nof income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant any penalty.\"\n6.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

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

disallowing its claim for long-term capital gain arising from the sale of shares of Jackson Investment Limited by treating the same as bogus. Penalty proceedings under section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Disallowance of sale of Rs.19,79,300/- Teak Trees (iii) Addition on account of Rs. 30,600/- income from house property Penalty proceedings under section 271

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

section 271(1B) of the Act, which reads as under: “271(1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction on account of retention money for all the five years under consideration, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why penalty under section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Kaushik Mukherjee Rs.10,00,000/- under section 80G on account of donation made to M/s. School of Human Genetics and Population Health. Penalty proceedings under section 271

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

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

disallowance of benefit wrongly claimed under Rule 8 of Income Tax Rules on account of tea manufactured from green leaves purchased from outside. Penalty proceedings under section 271

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added or disallowed

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added or disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

disallowance of Rs. 6,50,000/- on account of bogus trading loss on penny stocks claimed by the assessee and separate penalty proceeding initiated by the AO by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee by the Assessing Officer are that the assessee is a limited company and filed its return of income declaring taxable income u/s 139 of the Act of Rs.14,69,39,472.00 only. Subsequently

BIJAY KUMAR SHAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80D amounting to Rs.1,054/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated

OCTAGON ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10A amounting to Rs.16,04,108/-. Penalty proceedings under Assessment Year: 2011-2012 section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act and having not satisfied with the explanation, for such avoidance and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. Rs. 90,59,691/-. 4. The same was challenged before the CIT-A. The CIT-A after considering the various submissions of assessee cancelled the impugned penalty by observing/stating as under