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

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

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(38) of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the facts of the share transaction, it offered the long term capital gain which was claimed as exempt income for taxation, amounting to Rs.6,70,136/- to avoid litigation and buy peace with the Tax Department. Accordingly, Ld. AO completed the assessment

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

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

10(38) of the Act and simply after withdrawing the claim during the assessment proceeding the same was added to the income of the assessee but in place of LTCG the entire sale consideration was added. In our opinion, the said sum is not liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation. He took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial

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]

10(38) qua 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

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

38,65,557/-, which has escaped\nassessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 were\ninitiated after recording reasons and seeking prior approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax.\nAccordingly, statutory notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued & sent to the assessee by DIN &\nDocument No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032066973(1) dated 31.03.2021 through E-mail

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA vs. POSITIVE DEVCON PVT. LTD., SONARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10,000/-. There was no compliance during the penalty proceedings. Further, as per the Ld. AO, the assessee had not preferred any appeal against the order u/s I.T.A. No.: 1123/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Positive Devcon Pvt. Ltd. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO levied minimum penalty of Rs. 8,58,04,736/-. Aggrieved with

MUKLESUR RAHAMAN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-61, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Subash Agarwal & Income Tax, Circle 61, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Kolkata. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Atpps0434C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.39,38,412/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which is liable to be quashed since the Ld. AO has failed to specify the charge in the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar, AY 2015-16 3. In the present case, the assessment was completed u/s

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers 3 I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2024 Jitendra Kumar Jain (HUF) an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence

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

38,03,590/- which\nincluded the aforesaid income disclosed during the search action.\nThereafter, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on\n06.06.2014 accepting the return income of the assessee. In the meantime,\nthe AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and\nimposed penalty @ 10% on the suo moto income offered

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

38) on long terms capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer to be false, but now in the present case, the assessee has an explanation and it has buttressed this explanation with the following documentary evidence, i.e. (a) Trading of shares was done through broker