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

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

House, 119, Park\nStreet, Kolkata-700016,\nWest Bengal\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nDCIT, Central Circle 4(1)\nAaykar Bhawan Poorva,\n110, Shantipally, Em Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AABCB0986G\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nDate of hearing:\nDate of pronouncement:\nShri SK Tulsiyan &\nShri Puja Somani, ARs\nShri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR\n14.01.2026\n20.01.2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar

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

house property Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return of income declaring income of Rs.3,17,25,160/-. Income was declared under the heads ‘salary’, ‘house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support of the return

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

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

house property” on account of disallowance of property tax. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) was justified. 6. Considering the above discussion Ground No 1 and 2 of the appeal one dismissed. Since no change for alteration in the grounds are made during proceedings therefore, Ground No. 3 is dismissed as it need no adjudication.” 8. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable on facts

OBEROI BUILDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) was not sustainable:- "In the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, following adjustments/additions has been made by the Assessing Officer. 1. Contribution from shops given on leave and license amounting to Rs.13,90,260/- was treated by the AO under the head 'Income from house property

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to the tune of Rs 5,88,498/- for the Asst Year 2003-04. Similar disclosures were also made for the Asst Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 . The taxes together with interest were duly paid for these additional incomes offered for these three years. Out of this, the department did not initiate any action for the Asst Year

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property to the tune of Rs 5,88,498/- for the Asst Year 2003-04. Similar disclosures were also made for the Asst Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 . The taxes together with interest were duly paid for these additional incomes offered for these three years. Out of this, the department did not initiate any action for the Asst Year

RISHI KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Bench Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court. The Ld.Ar Submits That A Paper Book Containing Pages 1 To 44 Was Filed On 29- 03-2017 & Referred To Page No-7 Where A Copy Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Was Placed & Urged The Bench To Allow The Appeal In Terms Of This Decision. We Find That The Issue Before Us Is Covered By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows Supra & We Proceed To Hear The Case & Dispose Of The Same By Perusing The Material On Record. 3. The Only Issue Is To Be Decided As To Whether The Cit-A Justified In Confirming The Impugned Penalties Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) (C) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house property and business. In response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed all the details as required by the AO. The AO accepted the said return as filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and treated the same as undisclosed income as the assessee failed to file

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. With regard to the deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed in the return of income u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, the ld. AR submits that deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property

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

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

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

house construction, payment made for car parking space, profit from sale of land at Rajarhat investment made to various parties on interest etc. According to AO, the assessee has, in his original return of income, not disclosed flats and parking along with cash payment for purchase of immovable assets. When the L/H of the assessee confronted with the seized aforementioned

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

271(1) (c) of the Act. 4 Smt. Manju Pandey ITA Nos.1831 to 1`833/Kol/2016 A.Y.2008-09 11. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos. 1832/.Kol/2016 for A.Y.2008-09 which is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) which in turn arises out of an order passed

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

271(1) (c) of the Act. 4 Smt. Manju Pandey ITA Nos.1831 to 1`833/Kol/2016 A.Y.2008-09 11. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos. 1832/.Kol/2016 for A.Y.2008-09 which is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) which in turn arises out of an order passed

SMT. MANJU PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

271(1) (c) of the Act. 4 Smt. Manju Pandey ITA Nos.1831 to 1`833/Kol/2016 A.Y.2008-09 11. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos. 1832/.Kol/2016 for A.Y.2008-09 which is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) which in turn arises out of an order passed

SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property and capital gains etc. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.52,03,244/-. The AO S.A No. 22/Kol/2017 2 & ITA No.2183/Kol/2016 Satish Kumar Agarwal(HUF) determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,32,16,400/- vide his order dt. 23-02-2015. Against which the assessee preferred an appeal before