M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deduction u/s. 80IA @ 30 percent. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations

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.”

deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) for interest paid on loan taken for purchase of shares. The AO disallowed the interest u/s 14A and levied penalty u/s 271

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 :-

271 of the Act, dt. 27/11/2015. 7/11/2015. 2.1.2. The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s 274/271 of the Act, received along with the order passed u/s 144C

M/S SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee vide order dt. 29/03/2018. In this order, the assessee was penalised for concealment of income. The reason for the increase in income under normal provisions was as follows:- 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Shree Magnets Pvt. Ltd The assessee is into the business of manufacturing

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]

deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. Assessee submitted a reply on 24-04-2012 in response to penalty notice u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 682/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6918 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

deduction of Rs.79,53,97,988/- claimed u/s 80IE by the assessee, an amount of Rs.24,35,68,051/- is disallowed u/s 80IE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S PAHARPUR COLLING TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, is dismissed

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

deduction. Hence, the case appears to be fit for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the concealed

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]

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income regarding those items of income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return of income cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions

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]

deduction. Subsequently, penalty was imposed for all the five assessment years under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The assessee challenged the penalty order unsuccessfully before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Further appeal of the assessee, however, was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which disposed

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction u/s 80IA is rejected. This denial also AY: 2007-08 attracts initiation of penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1.T. Act is being initiated separately. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, total taxable income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.2,375,350/- Computation of Total Income is made as below: Income from Other Sources (as per return

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

deduction to the extent of 10% may kindly be set aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be aside and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB may kindly be quashed as the very foundation