DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

271 (1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 has been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. " 6.2. The Assessee has made detailed submission. Some of which is reproduced as below: "3.2 It is humbly submitted that the appellant company maintains a running account in respect of Switz Foods wherein the expenses incurred on regular basis along with business advances

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]

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 Gain" and claimed exemption but transaction has been disclosed in the return. There was no concealment of income

MAHAVIR PRASAD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

dividend income and interest income from PPF Account, income from other sources and capital gain on sale of shares. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue u/s 132(1) of the Act in Shyma Sel & Power Ltd. Group on 26.03.2010. The Assessee was also subjected to a search as he was part of the said

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

deemed dividend made on the basis of details furnished during the post search scrutiny proceedings. However, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the undisclosed income declared during the course of search and finally vide order dated 29th June, 2017, levied the impugned penalty ITA Nos. 973 & 974/KOL/2023 SVM Cera

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

deemed dividend made on the basis of details furnished during the post search scrutiny proceedings. However, the learned Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the undisclosed income declared during the course of search and finally vide order dated 29th June, 2017, levied the impugned penalty ITA Nos. 973 & 974/KOL/2023 SVM Cera

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. On the second question: The expression ‘shareholder’ referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

deemed to be deducted and paid by a deductor if resident recipient has disclosed the amount in his return of income and paid tax thereon, is retrospective in nature or not? The High Court held as under- Section 40(a)(ia) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 to ensure that an expenditure should not be allowed

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

deem it fit and appropriate , in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue of list of comparables also to the file of the ld TPO for denovo adjudication. The assessee is also given liberty to file fresh list of comparables, if it so desires, and also file fresh objections and evidences in support of its contentions

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

dividend interest etc. 3.4 On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) was of the view that the two bank accounts with Standard Chartered Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., were not disclosed by the assessee and it was only when the AO made verification with mutual funds/banks and thereafter

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

SHRI SANKAR SARKAR,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Received Dividend Of Rs.37,86,744/- From M/S. Subir Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd, In Short As M/S. Sewpl & Claimed Exemption U/S. 10(34) Of The Act. The Ao Added The Said Dividend Of Rs.37,86,744/- On The Ground That The Said M/S. Sewpl Did Not Deposit The Tax On Distributed Profits Within Stipulated Time. The Cit-A Confirmed The Said Addition Made By The Ao & Directed The Ao To Initiate The Penalty Proceedings For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. Accordingly, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Imposed Penalty Of Rs.11,70,102/-. He Further Submits That The Assessee Challenged The Addition Made By The Ao For Non Compliance Of Statutory Provisions U/S. 115-O Of The Act Before Tribunal & The Tribunal Remanded The Matter To The File Of 1 Ao In Terms Of Submissions Made By The Assessee That M/S. Sewpl Has Paid The Tax On Distributed Profits Vide Its Order Dt. 15-12-2017 In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 684/Kol/2015 A.Y 2010-11 & Referred To Para 4 Of The Said Order & Argued That In View Of Above The Penalty Is Not Maintainable In The Eye Of Law.

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing before us the ld.AR of the assessee submits that the assessee received dividend of Rs.37,86,744/- from M/s. Subir Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd, in short as M/s. SEWPL and claimed exemption u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO added the said dividend of Rs.37

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

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

dividend income derived by a co-operative society from its investments in any other co-operative society is deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act 1961. Thus the interest income amounting to Rs. 32,31,576/- earned on deposit from IDBI Bank, Axis Bank and Bandhan Bank is not deductible under section

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been initiated against the assessee on this point for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income. 5. It is found that the assessee has shown Rs. 14,00,000/- as current investments in equity as on 31.03.2012. No such is found

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORBIS POWER VENTURE PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately.” 5. We observe from the aforesaid reasons for the denial of claim of deduction that assessee did not earn any income during the relevant year under consideration. No fixed assets were shown in the audited balance sheet. No business started as on 31.03.10 which is relevant year under consideration

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

dividend income of Rs. 31,378/- while giving effect to the Impugned Order. 10. That the Impugned Order erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 11. That the Impugned Order erred in not deleting interest levied under section 234B of the Act. 12. That the Impugned Order erred in not deleting interest

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order