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), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula

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

38,78,480/-. There was a search and 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

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

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) The Revenue further files its written submissions to the following effect:- “Statement of facts: In consequence of search & seizure/survey operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee and in residential premises of the directors of the assessee on 13.02.2013, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.1,44,50,000/- u/s

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

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) The Revenue further files its written submissions to the following effect:- “Statement of facts: In consequence of search & seizure/survey operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee and in residential premises of the directors of the assessee on 13.02.2013, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.1,44,50,000/- u/s

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

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) The Revenue further files its written submissions to the following effect:- “Statement of facts: In consequence of search & seizure/survey operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee and in residential premises of the directors of the assessee on 13.02.2013, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.1,44,50,000/- u/s

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

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) The Revenue further files its written submissions to the following effect:- “Statement of facts: In consequence of search & seizure/survey operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee and in residential premises of the directors of the assessee on 13.02.2013, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.1,44,50,000/- u/s

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

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

38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) The Revenue further files its written submissions to the following effect:- “Statement of facts: In consequence of search & seizure/survey operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee and in residential premises of the directors of the assessee on 13.02.2013, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.1,44,50,000/- u/s

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

Section 10(32) of the Act in place of 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued upon the assessee Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) dated 27.01.2011 was served upon the assessee dated 29.06.2011 for fixing the date of hearing dated 08.07.2011. In compliance thereto assessee appeared before Assessing Officer dated

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

38,55,000 2007-08 66,71,000 2008-09 12,62,61,040 ------------------- 15,00,01,986 ------------------- 3 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi The head of the group Shri S.K. Sarawgi gave a sworn statement on the date of search on 24.1.2008 / 25.1.2008 offering Rs 15 crores as undisclosed income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

38,55,000 2007-08 66,71,000 2008-09 12,62,61,040 ------------------- 15,00,01,986 ------------------- 3 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi The head of the group Shri S.K. Sarawgi gave a sworn statement on the date of search on 24.1.2008 / 25.1.2008 offering Rs 15 crores as undisclosed income

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

38,775/- ITA No.1869-70/Kol/2013 A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 DCIT CC-VII, Kol. Vs. Sh S.S.Dhanuka Page 4 8 Cash 14,374,155/- Total 23,241,290/- From the above, it was clear that assessee has made total undisclosed investment for ₹1,43,74,155/-. Out of the total undisclosed investment

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)

10,000) for our adjudication and validity of levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. It is not in dispute that the first show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act was issued on 5.12.2012 in respect of re-assessment completed on 16.5.2011. It is not in dispute that the second show cause notice u/s 271E

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38,905/- lacs 2009-10 Rs. Nil Rs.1.30 Nil Rs.3,54,840/- Rs.1,33,54,840/- lacs In assessment orders passed for various AYs, the AO has accepted the income declared by assessee after making some additions and after verifying the books of accounts, other documentary evidence. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings against assessee u/s. 271

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea of the Assessee that on analysis of the income disclosed for the above years and cash balance lying unused at the end of the relevant financial year, it was only in the assessment year

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

38,561/- 51,61,439/- ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 6. It was also the plea of the Assessee that on analysis of the income disclosed for the above years and cash balance lying unused at the end of the relevant financial year, it was only in the assessment year