KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying the penalty of Rs.1,30,581/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who citing various decisions, upheld the action of AO levying penalty of Rs.1

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying the penalty of Rs.1,30,581/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who citing various decisions, upheld the action of AO levying penalty of Rs.1

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

263 Revision of the dated 25.8.11 order NOTE: penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed on 27.03.2014 3rd 7 Assessing

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 :-

revised upwards by Rs. 570,31,878/-.” 2.1.1. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order dt. 27/11/2015 u/s 144C Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order dt. 27/11/2015 u/s 144C Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order dt. 27/11/2015 u/s 144C of the Act, which was titled “ of the Act, which was titled “DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER

SKAN ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-12, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income by claiming of excess

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 order had been quashed by this Tribunal, there cannot be any levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the said revision

JAI KUMAR KANKARIA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 881/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jai Kumar Kankaria -Vs- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-I, Kolkata [Pan: Akgpk 4751 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, it was held that initiation of the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act was not justified and to the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revision

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am A.C.I.T. (International Taxation), Vs. M/S Joy Partnership Mining Circle-1 (2), Kolkata Centre Room No-206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 85/1 Topsia Road, ( South) Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700046 Kolkata-7000107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj 6427 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

penalty U/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. The ld. DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO which we have already noted in our above para and is not being repeated

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(10© of the act and prosecution proceedings u/s. 276C, 277A r.w.s. 278B of the Act. g) Directed the AO to verify the rent paid by assessee amounting to Rs.15.96 lakhs from the TDS documents provided in the assessment proceedings; h) Directed the AO to verify the professional charges and conveyance charges amounting to Rs.19

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(10© of the act and prosecution proceedings u/s. 276C, 277A r.w.s. 278B of the Act. g) Directed the AO to verify the rent paid by assessee amounting to Rs.15.96 lakhs from the TDS documents provided in the assessment proceedings; h) Directed the AO to verify the professional charges and conveyance charges amounting to Rs.19

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision proceedings u/s 263 or 264 of the Act. Hence the assessee’s case squarely falls under clause (c ) of section 275(1) of the Act supra. In this case, penalty could be imposed on or before 30.11.2011 or on or before 31.3.2012 whichever is later. The later period is 31.3.2012. Hence the last date for imposition of penalty

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271D and 271E read with Section 274 of the Act.” Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3.2. With this finding he set aside to the AO for detailed verification of cash transaction to the tune of Rs. 5,21,17,075/-. 3.3. It needs

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271D and 271E r.w.s 274 of the Act. ……………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 19. However, as stated in various paras supra, the assessee has been indulging in cash transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,56,50,000/- during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Though the AO has given a set off of Rs.8

SRI RAJ KUMAR BANSAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 42(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

penalty imposed by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on income estimated by CIT(A) and confirmed by Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of transportation and AO during the reassessment proceedings i.e. after revision order of CIT u/s. 263

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately. [Add: Rs. 46,75,71,359/-] ’ Hence, the learned PCIT failed to appreciate the facts of the case and erred in his understanding that the said provision for NPA relates to computation of income under normal provisions and that the assessee is not allowed

PRIME DECOR LAMINATE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.2292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prime Decor Laminate (P) Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Balance Estate Pvt. Ltd.)…..............................……Appellant 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Block-B, Room No.10, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcb3770E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata........….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 5, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 5, 2022

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and noted that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not verified genuineness and source of the share capital and share premium as well as identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. He, therefore, held the assessment order dated 26.04.2010 passed u/s 147 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act and issued notice to the\nassessee dated 22.07.2017 show causing the assessee as to why the\npenalty imposed by the Ld. AO @ 10% be not revised and imposed @ 30%\nas the assessee had filed return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act, whereas,\nthe specified date as per the provision of section 271AAB