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

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]

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against following disallowances made vide order u/s. 143(3) of the Act: (i) Disallowance

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of Rs. 15,15,457/- u/s 14A of the Act, ignoring the decision of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.-Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and without appreciating that the same being a legal issue involving substantial question of law, penalty u/s 271

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

u/s. 271(1) ( c) for concealment of particulars of income. Relevant findings of the AO for imposition of penalty are reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- Besides the above the A.O. in the assessment order disallowed

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure and thereafter the assessee has disclosed a particular concealed income and surrendered it for tax and tax had been together with interest. 8.2. The next aspect is as to whether the immunity provided in clause 2 of Explanation 5 to section 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) without considering the basic fact that the total income for the A.Y. 2010-11 declared in the valid return was Rs. 10,15,47,560/- whereas the total income assessed u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2013 was Rs. 10,15,47,560/-, causing difference of Rs. 15,000/- only owing to disallowance

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]

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer to the book profits, to the book profits, computed and disclosed by the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee in th computed and disclosed by the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee in th computed and disclosed by the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee in this

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]

disallowed and accordingly the assessment order was framed and penalty was initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for willfully

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]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the concealed income of Rs. 24,62,300/- and the same is imposed @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded.” 4. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the penalty imposed by the AO observing the following: “From perusal

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, we therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 12.1 The legal position in this regard has been explained in the decision in the case of Dr. Hakeem S.A. Sajed Sattar v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 120 ITD 1 (Chennai). It has been held

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, we therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 12.1 The legal position in this regard has been explained in the decision in the case of Dr. Hakeem S.A. Sajed Sattar v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 120 ITD 1 (Chennai). It has been held

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

disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271AAB on the ground the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to specify

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

disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271AAB on the ground the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to specify

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 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)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee by the Assessing Officer are that the assessee is a limited company and filed its return of income declaring taxable income u/s 139 of the Act of Rs.14,69,39,472.00 only. Subsequently a search operation was conducted upon the assessee u/s

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s. 271(1) ( c ) of the Act. The ITAT has held as under:- “6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings, wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made. On the above

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made