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

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

business or\nprofession was reduced and addition was made under the head income\nfrom other sources. Thus, there was no change in the returned income\nand assessed income. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty is not\nleviable on this amount which was treated as unexplained cash credit\nu/s 68 of the Act, for the reason that the explanation

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

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

business or\nprofession was reduced and addition was made under the head income\nfrom other sources. Thus, there was no change in the returned income\nand assessed income. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty is not\nleviable on this amount which was treated as unexplained cash credit\nu/s 68 of the Act, for the reason that the explanation

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business. Hence,\ncash deposited in Bank of Baroda bearing a/c no. 39920100006975 amounting to Rs. 16,96,682/-\nand in State Bank of India bearing A/c No. 31561107456 amounting to Rs. 4,09,500/- totaling to Rs.\n21,06,182/- is treated as unexplained credit entries in book of the assessee and accordingly, addition

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income. The impugned penalty thus, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, ordered to be deleted. Now, we take up ITA No. 1863/Kol/2024: 3 ITA No. 1862-1863/Kol/2024 Tiriyogi Narayan Singh AYs 2012-13 & 2014-15 5. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy/confirmation of penalty of Rs.6,40,362/- u/s. 271

TIRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income. The impugned penalty thus, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly, ordered to be deleted. Now, we take up ITA No. 1863/Kol/2024: 3 ITA No. 1862-1863/Kol/2024 Tiriyogi Narayan Singh AYs 2012-13 & 2014-15 5. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy/confirmation of penalty of Rs.6,40,362/- u/s. 271

BABLU ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.05.2018 for AY 2015-16. 2. Ground raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the initiation of the penalty as well as the penalty notice u/s. 273/271(1)(c) of the Act is not accordance with the law, void ab initio

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the charge alleged by the Ld. AO that assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income in respect of claim of 8 Height Insurance Services Ltd., AY 2014-15 carry forward and set off of business

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18.12.2019 the AO stated that “It appears that you have concealed the particular income”. Thus it clear from the above that the AO was himself not sure as to the charge of penalty. In our opinion, the said approach of the AO in making assessment without framing the charges and issuing notice without being sure

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income

IMAGE FINVEST & LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata 200, Block-A, Bangur Avenue, Vs Kolkata-700055 Pan: Aaaci 5378 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

business loss of Rs. 5,61,182/-. The ld. AO was observed from the profit & loss account that the assessee had written off liabilities to the tune of Rs. 3,97,596/-. However, while computing the total income in the return, the amount was not considered as income. The ld. AO confronted with the discrepancy during the course of assessment

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business. It was conveyed to the Ld. AR that the assessee is a wholesaler and the margin of profit is reasonable. However, the profit rate applied at 5% was considered to be slightly higher and the Bench was of the view that the net profit rate of 4% may be applied on the turnover shown

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business. It was conveyed to the Ld. AR that the assessee is a wholesaler and the margin of profit is reasonable. However, the profit rate applied at 5% was considered to be slightly higher and the Bench was of the view that the net profit rate of 4% may be applied on the turnover shown

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business. It was conveyed to the Ld. AR that the assessee is a wholesaler and the margin of profit is reasonable. However, the profit rate applied at 5% was considered to be slightly higher and the Bench was of the view that the net profit rate of 4% may be applied on the turnover shown

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

business of running rice mill. The return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30th September, 2013, declaring income of ₹1,45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

business of running rice mill. The return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30th September, 2013, declaring income of ₹1,45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

business of running rice mill. The return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30th September, 2013, declaring income of ₹1,45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying