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

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of the assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation

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

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of the assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of loss only to avoid litigation, which is time-consuming and because of the smallness of the case and the assessee requested that the penalty proceedings maybe dropped. In the penalty proceedings, after reproducing Para 10 and Para 11 of the assessment order, it was held by the Ld. AO that the assessee had deliberately produced inaccurate particulars

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs.1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Inward and Rs.1,13,00,980/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Outward, and such additions shall stand deleted. 36. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on September

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(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings, was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing

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 by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings, was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty

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.”

disallowed the amount of depreciation claimed by assessee on land and added to the total income of assessee. However, AO in his assessment proceedings initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued penalty notice u/s. 274 of the Act dated 28..08.2013. The AO finally levied the penalty of ₹23,68,786/- being

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWDHURY ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 61(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

SHYAM SUNDAR HAZRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shyam Sundar Hazra Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

disallowances made during assessments. The CIT(A) confirmed these penalties.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274

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 the explanation offered by the assessee in response to show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer, he imposed a penalty of Rs.66,745/- under section

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant which was upheld by the CIT(A) and that too on the technical ground; it cannot be said that the appellant company has filed inaccurate particulars of income and under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. This view is supported by the decision

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(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer in respect of wrong claim of deduction of Rs.10

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(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since no explanation was offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said