AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

U/S 271(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

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

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

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

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

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

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

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

11 has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For the penalty order u/s. 250 of IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction. Hence the penalty order shall liable to be quashed. 2. That you petitioner voluntarily disclosed higher income and paid tax thereupon. Hence, the question of concealment and initiation of penalty proceedings does not apply

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5.\nAfter hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by treating the sales made by the assessee to SR Trading of ₹11,31,000/- as bogus. We note that the sales were duly recorded in the books of account

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied