SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

seizure of any paper or document and any valuable in the course of search operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicating any undisclosed income for the year of assessment, assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3)/153A is entirely invalid and of no consequences and the imposition of penalty u/s. 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

seizure of any paper or document and any valuable in the course of search operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicating any undisclosed income for the year of assessment, assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3)/153A is entirely invalid and of no consequences and the imposition of penalty u/s. 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

seizure of any paper or document and any valuable in the course of search operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicating any undisclosed income for the year of assessment, assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3)/153A is entirely invalid and of no consequences and the imposition of penalty u/s. 271

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

seizure of any paper or document and any valuable in the course of search operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicating any undisclosed income for the year of assessment, assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3)/153A is entirely invalid and of no consequences and the imposition of 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

search & seizure and as such malafide is apparent. In view of the above and the Explanation 5A, the assessee’s explanations are not satisfactory. In view of above, I am satisfied that this a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

271(1)(c) or 271AAA, the provisions contained in Section 271AAB were mandatory and automatic and once 2 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. disclosure of income was made by an assessee in his statement u/s 132(4), then penalty had to be levied under Section 271AAB of the Act. According to AO the disclosure of Rs.69 crores made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

search and seizure operations assessee declared certain undisclosed income which was added to the income disclosed in returns filed in response to notice issued under section 153A and the assessment orders were followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee’s submissions, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

search and seizure operations assessee declared certain undisclosed income which was added to the income disclosed in returns filed in response to notice issued under section 153A and the assessment orders were followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee’s submissions, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act conducted in “Fortune Ispat Group” of case on 16.02.2010 and subsequent dates. During the search proceedings cash payment for ₹2,09,03,682/-was found in terms of seized documents marked as FI/Office/6 & FI/Office/7which was owned by assessee in his statement disclosure petition u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153C

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) was not leviable by operation of Explanation 5 in a case where a statement u/s 132(4) was filed in course of a search and seizure