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

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

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

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

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

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

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

VISHAL OSATWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Vishal Osatwal………………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ground Floor, 34/1U, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kol – 700019. [Pan: Aanpo2583R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,62,746/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Revised Computation Of Income Offering Additional Income Of Rs.74,62,846/- Being Ltcg Claimed As Exempt In The Original Return Of Income. The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 20-10-2016 Determining The Assessee'S Total Income At Rs.92,97,450/- By Making Addition Of Rs.74,62,846/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Ltcg & Disallowance Of Legal Expenses Of Rs. 3,809/-. In Respect Of Both These Vishal Osatwal Additions, The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

exempt in the original return of income. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 20-10-2016 determining the assessee's total income at Rs.92,97,450/- by making addition of Rs.74,62,846/- on account of disallowance of LTCG and disallowance of legal expenses of Rs. 3,809/-. In respect of both these Vishal Osatwal

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 06.09.2021 of AO imposing penalty of Rs. 3,42,614/-. 2) The appellant craves the leave to make an addition, alteration modification of the grounds either before the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

KUSHAL SENGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Kushal Sengupta Income Tax Officer Urbana, Tower-4/1604, Ward, 25(1), Aaykar Bhavan Anandapur, Kolkata-700107, Dakshin,2, Gariahat Road Vs. West Bengal (South), Kolkata-700068 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Almps0771P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 01.01.2022, imposing the penalty of ₹5,28,234/- by stating in the penalty order that as per information available on ITBA portal in 360 degree till date, the assessee had not been preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The penalty was levied for concealing the particulars of income

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves the right to put additional grounds and/or amend/alter/modify

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves the right to put additional grounds and/or amend/alter/modify

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c). (e) We paid the tax due and challan copy is enclosed. (f) No appeal is filed. In addition, the assessee referred to various case laws. These documents have not been held as false either by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding or during penalty proceeding. Therefore, the assessee does not deserve to be visited

KUSUM TATER,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 47(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rides made there under. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble CIT (A) erred

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. Assessment

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. Assessment