SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and hence bad in law and be quashed. ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee vs. ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. Page 6 5. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time

BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and hence bad in law and be quashed. ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee vs. ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. Page 6 5. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

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

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 was without jurisdiction and hence bad in law and be quashed. ITA No.2654-56/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Barnali Banerjee vs. ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. Page 6 5. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. The issue involved in assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 are identical in nature and hence they are taken up together and disposed off by common order. A.Yrs.2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10 3. The first common issue involved in the assessment

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. The issue involved in assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 are identical in nature and hence they are taken up together and disposed off by common order. A.Yrs.2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10 3. The first common issue involved in the assessment

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. The issue involved in assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 are identical in nature and hence they are taken up together and disposed off by common order. A.Yrs.2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10 3. The first common issue involved in the assessment

M/S MADURA STONES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Madura Stones Pvt. Ltd.…….…..……………………...………………..……………..….Appellant 5, Clive Row 6Th Floor Room No. 6A Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaecm 6774 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)…………………………………………………….……...Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 10B Commissioner in the case of an hundred percent export oriented unit will be considered valid, once such an approval is ratified by the Board of Approval for EOU Scheme. Hence exemption claimed of Rs. 1,60,92,202/- by the assessee u/s 10B is disallowed and added back to the total business income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings

M/S AWANTI CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [PAN No.AAFFM 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Gouri Prasad Sen, Advocate Shri Vivek Verma, JCIT, SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-12-2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 20- 01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

LALIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevanand Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Lalit Jalan, V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O M.S Orient Ward-32(3), 10B, Distributors, 26, Middelton Row, Sharespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071 Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Acxpj5133G] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountantmember:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata,Dated 18.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Ofa Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 13.09.2013. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10B, 10C, 10D, 10E for computing its income having regard re arm's length price, and maintaining necessary information and documentation for determination of arm's length price. This was done as per procedures outlined and in good faith to comply with all the provisions of law and to 12 13 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 provide

M/S. TODI INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10B, Middleton Row Street, Kolkata-700 071 Appearances by: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : March 04, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 04, 2019 O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee

D.CI.T.(TDS), CIRCLE-58, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.J.EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

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

271 C is sustainable in view of deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) in the first appeal. ITA No.2569/Kol/2013AC-JM M/s. J.J Exporters Ltd 1 3. Brief facts are that the AO by an order dtd. 28-12-2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act had disallowed an amount of Rs.3,84,07,558/- u/s

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

10B(4) of the Rules. 6. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. 6.1 The Appellant reserves the right for the benefits arising out of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

10B(4) of the Rules. 6. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. 6.1 The Appellant reserves the right for the benefits arising out of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned

LALIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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.349/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Lalit Jalan Vs. Ito, Ward – 32(3), Kolkata

10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 700 017. 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :ACXPJ 5133 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(Sr. DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 02/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal