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

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

46,839/- 29,71,040/- 6,86,000/- 2002-03 7,31,722/- 93,27,534/- 1,09,30,784/- 27,34,037/- 2004-05 4,95,693/- 15,30,967/- 20,26,660/- 2,54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order of the AO in this regard

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

46,839/- 29,71,040/- 6,86,000/- 2002-03 7,31,722/- 93,27,534/- 1,09,30,784/- 27,34,037/- 2004-05 4,95,693/- 15,30,967/- 20,26,660/- 2,54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order of the AO in this regard

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

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

10. It is in this factual backdrop that hon'ble high court had held that the Assessing Officer had issued the relevant notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 containing all particulars and section 292B of the Act would apply since the assessee had never objected correctness thereof before ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37

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

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

10. It is in this factual backdrop that hon'ble high court had held that the Assessing Officer had issued the relevant notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 containing all particulars and section 292B of the Act would apply since the assessee had never objected correctness thereof before ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37

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

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

10. It is in this factual backdrop that hon'ble high court had held that the Assessing Officer had issued the relevant notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 containing all particulars and section 292B of the Act would apply since the assessee had never objected correctness thereof before ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37

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

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

10. It is in this factual backdrop that hon'ble high court had held that the Assessing Officer had issued the relevant notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 containing all particulars and section 292B of the Act would apply since the assessee had never objected correctness thereof before ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37

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

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

10. It is in this factual backdrop that hon'ble high court had held that the Assessing Officer had issued the relevant notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 containing all particulars and section 292B of the Act would apply since the assessee had never objected correctness thereof before ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

46,700) in the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the assessee claimed that it had made voluntary disclosure of additional income of Rs. 19,57,900/- which were ultimately added in the search assessment and also stated that the same cannot be construed as a disclosure made by the assessee

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

46,363/-“ 5 Sri Deo Kumar Saraf AY 2009-10 10. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in respect to bogus speculation income observed that this is income from other sources and not speculation income as claimed by the assessee and, therefore, the loss claimed against this alleged speculation income is actually income from other sources

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during