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.”

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be Imposed on the assessee. 7. The above contention of the assessee also finds its strength from the following judicial pronouncements: •The Jurisdictional Kolkata ITAT in the case of "DCIT, CC-VIII vs. Ram Chandra Agarwal ITA No.1700/Ko/2012 held that "We find that the assessee was under bona fide belief that

I.T.O WD - 44(4) ,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SAILESH JALAN, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Penalty u/s, 271(1) ( c ) of the IT Act is also initiated on this addition as the assessee has concealed his income and also material particulars of income to the extent of addition. 4.A) In respect of the assessee's Short Term Capital Gains

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Capital Gain. Thus, according to AO, it was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the computation

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of Income from Capital Gain and Income from Other Sources with a motive

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

capital loss and (iii) disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order wherein AO made additions in respect to these three items and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect to these three items

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by DCIT, Circle-51, Kolkata vide his order dated 24.06.2011. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before us by the assessee which is supported with condonation petition. In view of the concession given

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPLOK BUILDERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by theRevenue and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee , are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

capital gains when deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- was claimed u/s 54EC, which was mistakenly claimed on the basis of the relevant entry in the audited accounts which was in fact not relatable to the year of assessment under appeal. It is revealed from the records that the appellant has duly credited the sale proceeds in its accounts

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). . 2. The AO noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in column 18 of Form 3CD of TAR that the opening WDV (written down value) of intangible asset as Rs. 32,12,50,000/- and the assessee had claimed

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after carrying out the penalty proceedings and considering

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 disclosing total income of Rs. 4,81,69,267/-. The 2 Ambo Agro Products Ltd. A.Yr. 2009-10 assessment was completed

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

capital gain should have been taxed therefore the entire amount was added back to the income of the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer noted that it was clear case that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty u/s 271

SAKUNTALA BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.528/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sakuntala Basu Vs. C.I.T– Xvi, Kolkata Ito Ward 29 (4) 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 27. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aihpb 8814A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :None Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.17/Cit(A)-Xvi/Wd-29(4)/Kol/12-13 Dated 26.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.06.2009. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain, therefore the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO for Rs.2,81,550.00 being @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. The order of AO was confirmed by CIT(A). 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO for Rs.2,81,550.00 being @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. The order of AO was confirmed by CIT(A). 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 23.06.2009. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.1,86,568/-, under section 271(10(c), for the alleged concealment of income being ITA No.1799/Kol/2013

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

Capital Gains (LTCG for short) in shares for ₹3,45,57,985/- only which was claimed as exempted u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Note: The Assessing Officer by mistake has recorded the Section 10(32) of the Act in place of 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued upon the assessee

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]

capital gain to tax and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) without recording any satisfaction framing the charge

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Gain. No appeal was preferred and the addition had become final. Thereafter the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied penalty. The Tribunal reduced the penalty. On further appeal to the High Court: 3 Ms. Leela Mondal AY 2008-09 'Held, that the assessee had shown "Long Term Capital

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Capital Gains income and denial of 80JJA deduction was confirmed by the AO. In respect of the aforesaid addition and denial of deduction in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271