MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s. 271(1) for the sole ground of filing a return of income showing taxable income only. 3. For that the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, rescind, substitute and/or submit additional ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the penalty order are that as per information received

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded 2 Sweta Chirimar, AY 2012-13 by the assessee of Rs.1,24,470/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which was also affirmed by the appellate authority. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee claimed deduction

GREENEX CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.657/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Greenex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.………....................................................……Appellant 4/1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaacg8396G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata…..…....…...................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Kolkata-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(A)-20 Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The It Act, 1961 At Rs.20,06,030/- By Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Had Made Disclosure During The Search To Buy Metal Peace & Avoid Litigation & Hence No Penalty Is To Be Levied U/S 271Aab.

271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act is also initiated separately in this ground”. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB of the Act to submit that the said penalty notice was defective and that no penalty can be imposed on the basis of such defective notice. He has submitted

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

LORDS CHEMICALS LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

deduction u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, Ld. AO has calculated the MAT according to fact of the case. 2 AY: 2012-13 Lords Chemicals Limited 5. That ld. CIT(A) has wrongly stated and taken the view about the enhancement of income by calculation the book profit. 6. That ld. CIT(A) has wrongly initiated the penalty proceedings u/s

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) cannot be levied. Further in a case CIT V.SSP Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman282(P&H) it has been held thus- Mere erroneous claim for deduction

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

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

deduction of Rs.1,50,000/-\nclaimed u/s 24(b) of the Act was disallowed. Based on the said\ndisallowance/addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act\ndated 22/08/2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply\nobjecting to the same was duly submitted. Thereafter, the Assessing\nOfficer passed the order u/s.271

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [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: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act was disallowed. Based on the said disallowance/addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22/08/2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply objecting to the same was duly submitted. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.271

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [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: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act was disallowed. Based on the said disallowance/addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22/08/2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply objecting to the same was duly submitted. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.271

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [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: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act was disallowed. Based on the said disallowance/addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22/08/2023 was issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply objecting to the same was duly submitted. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.271

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:

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be deleted. With regard to the deduction of Rs.1

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR.3(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried

FAB LEATHERS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.414/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2006-07 is taken as the lead case for narration of facts. I.T.A. Nos.414 to 419/Kol/2024&I.T.A. No.490/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2011-12 Fab Leathers Limited 2. During the assessment proceedings carried