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,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

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 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

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

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or 3 I.T.A. No. 1090/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Bir Singh

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.”

section 271 (l)(c) were also initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income and an order imposing penalty was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order imposing penalty. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218(which

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

11-12 & 2012-13 Shri Anil Chandra Paul,..................................................Appellant Thana Road, Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur-733 124 [PAN: AFBPP 1902 L] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,..................…….....Respondent Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700 107 Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, for the assessee Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT, D.R., for the Department

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being 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 in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

u/s 153A of the Act. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Brijendra Gupta in ITA No. 330 of 2009 dated 8.6.2015 , wherein the question raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as under:- The following question of law was suggested

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

11 ITA Nos. 1386 to 1388/Kol/2010-C-AM M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd, Kolkata (2012) 24 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi) wherein the head notes are reproduced herein below:- Section 271(1)(c ), read with section 153A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For Concealment of income – Assessment Year 2004-05 – Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) resulting

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed or 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 in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed or 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 in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10.” 6. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for adjudication of additional ground raised by the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised either before the AO or the CIT(Appeals). 7. We have considered the rival submissions