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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10

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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10

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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY 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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10

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 :-

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 and also the order of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria vs. ACIT in ITA No. 956/Kol/2016; Assessment Year 2010-11, order

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

271(1)(c) or 271AAA where the AO was given discretion in the matter of levying penalty. The Ld.CIT DR supported the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs Sandeep Chandak (405 ITR 648). He therefore urged for upholding the order of AO levying penalty u/s

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.”

10 The assessee had claimed certain deductions which were disallowed and addition had been made to its income. On the basis of this penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Penalty was imposed but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On appeal: Held, dismissing

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(b) for the following reasons given in his impugned orders, which are common for all the seven years under consideration:_ “The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal but all grounds are mainly regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of this the matter is discussed with

PUTUL JASH,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

10,000/- U/s 271(1) ( C) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this

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

u/s. 153A which was not declared in the original return, accordingly, made applicable the Explanation 5A of S. 271(1) ( c) of the Act and confirmed the penalty order as imposed by the AO by observing as under:- “4. I have carefully considered the submission of the L.d A.r . There is no dispute that during the course of search evidence

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

u/s 153A of the Act. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Brijendra Gupta in ITA No. 330 of 2009 dated 8.6.2015 , wherein the question raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as under:- The following question of law was suggested

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 ) of the Act could be levied ; - the expression ‘to be furnished’ mentioned in Clause 2 of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) has to be construed as ‘required to be furnished u/s 153A of the Act’ - no satisfaction with regard to specific charge of concealment, as contemplated in section two limbs of section 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

u/s 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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

u/s 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 23.06.2009. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.1,86,568/-, under section 271(10

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

u/s 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10

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

u/s 274 of the Act stating that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Finally the AO imposed penalty in terms of explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the penalty is levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of ₹10