DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 06.07.2015. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-11, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.08.2013 for assessment year

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

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

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

disallowance if overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath Shroff A.Y.2001-02 to 200203 & 2004-05&2005-06 Ltd. (supra) has to be understood in the context of the facts

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

disallowance if overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath Shroff A.Y.2001-02 to 200203 & 2004-05&2005-06 Ltd. (supra) has to be understood in the context of the facts

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. As regards intention of the assessee, the concealment of income has been detected in action of search & seizure and as such malafide is apparent. In view of the above and the Explanation 5A, the assessee’s explanations are not satisfactory. In view of above, I am satisfied that this a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

d) As there was exchange of information under the DTAA between India As there was exchange of information under the DTAA between India As there was exchange of information under the DTAA between India and Netherlands, in terms of Explanation 1 and Netherlands, in terms of Explanation 1 (vii) to Section 153 of the (vii) to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

D. S. Damle, FCA For the Revenue : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Bench: These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A), Central-1, Kolkata vide appeal Nos. 85-89/CC-XI/CIT(A),C-1/10-11 dated 18.08.2011. Assessments was framed by DCIT, Central Circle-XI, Kolkata u/s.153A/143(3) of the Income

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

D. S. Damle, FCA For the Revenue : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Bench: These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A), Central-1, Kolkata vide appeal Nos. 85-89/CC-XI/CIT(A),C-1/10-11 dated 18.08.2011. Assessments was framed by DCIT, Central Circle-XI, Kolkata u/s.153A/143(3) of the Income

BASIL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

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

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

D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central- III, Kolkata dated 28.08.2009, whereby he confirmed the penalties of Rs.5,16,000/-, Rs.23,54,000/-, Rs.42,21,500/- and Rs.25,800/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1

PRITHI PAUL SINGH SETHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXII, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central- III, Kolkata dated 28.08.2009, whereby he confirmed the penalties of Rs.7,23,020/- and Rs.10,95,440/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present four appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti passed on 23.12.2021 for assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 except

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present four appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti passed on 23.12.2021 for assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 except

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOL. , KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits