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]

exemption u/s. 10(35) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further was of the opinion that the assessee has not disclosed full facts in the return of income and, therefore, sustained the penalty u/s. 271

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]

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. 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

exempt income and the investments to earn such dividend income were funded from the increased paid up capital during the year and issue of fresh equity shares. The ld. Authorities below have not tried to verify the contention of the 14 ITA Nos. 1498 & 2283/Del./2014 assessee from the books of account of the assessee before imposing penalty u/s. 271

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]

exemption was asked in notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 08-07-2011.Thereafter, assessee admitted that no such investment was made in the said Financial Year. The question is that whether the same amounts to concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. There is no dispute that the assessee has given the wrong informationthat there is investment

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response thereto on show cause notice, assessee submitted that the particulars of LTCG income was duly furnished in the income tax return itself but such income was claimed as exempted

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and she filed her original

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

exemption claimed by the assessee at Rs.3,98,75,551/- is disallowed and the income of the assessee trust is assessed at Rs.3,98,75,551/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 to 4 are allowed.” ITA No.1487/Kol/2012 M/s. Concast Steel & Power Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The ld. DR before us submitted that the seized documents

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]

exempted income as short Term Capital Gain and added the income to total income and taxed thereon at special rate @ 10% u/s. 111A of the Act. No appeal has been preferred against this order by the assessee. Therefore, that addition has become final. Thereafter, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

exempt income for taxation, amounting to Rs.6,70,136/- to avoid litigation and buy peace with the Tax Department. Accordingly, Ld. AO completed the assessment, considering the voluntary offering made by the assessee which was added to the total income of the assessee as income from other sources. 3.1. While doing so, Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE JUTE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009} 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the court

AMS FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA 4, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the Principal CIT are as follows :- The Assessee is a company. An order of Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 22.1.2014 in which the AO allowed long term loss on redemption/sale of mutual funds of Rs.2,22,763/- while computing income from business. The Principal

MAA CHINTPOORNI TIE-UP PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act both dated 15.09.2017 and 30.03.2018 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 540/Kol/2023: Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 “1. For that, the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) failed to consider the fact that there was an admitted delay

MAA CHINTPOORNI TIE-UP PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act both dated 15.09.2017 and 30.03.2018 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 540/Kol/2023: Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 “1. For that, the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeal) failed to consider the fact that there was an admitted delay

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 of Rs.1,21,470/- as levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Brief facts are that the return was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 28.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,99,770/- which was processed u/s

VIVEKANANDA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

Bench: The Cit- It Was Contended That There Was No Deliberate Omission On The Part Of Assesse In Concealing The Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Placed Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Cases Of T. Ashok Pai Vs. Cit Reported In 292 Itr 11(2007) (Sc) & Cit Vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd Reported In 322 Itr (201) 158(Sc) Respectively.

exemption and determined the total income at Rs. 21,78,052/- and allowed brought forward loss set off Rs.21,78,052/- and assed total income at ‘Nil’. Accordingly, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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]

271(1)(c ) of the Act. A copy of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.12.2019 is placed at page 14 of PB which states that the penalty has been initiated for concealing the particular of the income and the penalty was imposed equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act could be levied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee being individual has filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 24-07-2009, which is belated. The return was selected for scrutiny by issuing