ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However, we do not find that the assessing officer as well

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

long term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s. Vishal Retail Ltd as pointed out by the ld.AO in his penalty order vide page 2. The plea of the assessee that the claim for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was a bonafide mistake made by the assessee has to be accepted. There is no material on record

SMT. MINU GUPTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 15. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. 9 Smt. Minu Gupta, AY 2014-15 However, we do not find that the assessing officer

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

long term capital gain initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after carrying out the penalty

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 143(3)/147) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2006-07. Shri P.K. Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri R.P. Agarwal, Ld. Senior Advocate and Shri Nira Seth, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. ITA No.169/Kol/2014

BHABESH MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

u/s. 271(1) (c ) of the Act. According to AO, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the above, the AO decided to impose penalty @ 100% i.e. at Rs.33,79,927/-. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A. The CIT-A did not consider the submissions of assessee that there was bonafide mistake which committed

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 ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

long term capital gains voluntarily. We also find that the assessee had also given explanation for not offering the same in the original return of income due to his bona fide belief as stated supra. His bona fide explanation has not been found to be false by the Id. AO. From the above, it could be safely concluded that

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 6,70,390/-. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee offered the said income to tax by filing revised computation 3 I.T.A. No.836/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shubh Karan Baid which has been extracted in para 4. Thereafter the AO simply brought the said capital gain to tax and initiated the penalty proceedings 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]

long term capital gains when deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- was claimed u/s 54EC, which was mistakenly claimed on the basis of the relevant entry in the audited accounts which was in fact not relatable to the year of assessment under appeal. It is revealed from the records that the appellant has duly credited the sale proceeds in its accounts

SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

penalty on the assessee us/ 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly allow ITA No.588/Kol/2014. 5. As far as ITA No.587/Kol/2014 is concerned the same arises out of an order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) (second reassessment order) dated 27.01.2014. We have already seen that order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act dated

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

long term capital gain (LTCG), short term capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income is as under

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 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 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed long- term capital gains

PRAMOD KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 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 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed long- term capital gains

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

SRIKRISHNA ARJUN TRADING & INVESTMENT CO.(P) LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1438/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Srikrishna Arjun Trading & Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata Investment Co. (P) Ltd. 8Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – Mcleod House, 3Rd Floor, 3 N.S. Road, 700 069. Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 7693 N (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri P. J. Bhide Respondent By : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

long term capital gains and again as an expenditure in profit & loss account. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not disclosed particulars of income correctly and claimed double deduction therefore,it was an enough ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271

SRI SACHINADRA NATH KAYAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Ito Warrd-23(1), बनाम Vill. Makhla-2, P.O. & Aayakar Bhawan, / V/S. P.S. Uttarpara, Khadinamore, Dist.Hooghly Pin 712247 Chinsurah, Hooghly [Pan No.Afepk 7726 E] Pin-712101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.P. Datta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.07.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 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 30.04.2013. Shri S.P. Datta, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Saurbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue.

Long Term Capital Gains earned by assessee and initiated the penalty proceedings and he finally imposed the penalty u/s 271

SUDIP KUMAR GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1563/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sudip Kumar Ghosh –Vs- Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata [Pan: Acwpg 0160 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

long term capital gains aggregating to Rs.7,09,000/- is charged to tax. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1 )( c) read