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

section 271(1)((c) of the Act as no satisfactory explanation was offered, nor he could prove that the omission to declare the income was bona fide. Hence, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for dissenting with the view held by the Ld. CIT(A), who was rightly confirmed the penalty imposed u/s

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

section 271(1)((c) of the Act as no satisfactory explanation was offered, nor he could prove that the omission to declare the income was bona fide. Hence, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for dissenting with the view held by the Ld. CIT(A), who was rightly confirmed the penalty imposed u/s

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

section 271(1)((c) of the Act as no satisfactory explanation was offered, nor he could prove that the omission to declare the income was bona fide. Hence, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for dissenting with the view held by the Ld. CIT(A), who was rightly confirmed the penalty imposed u/s

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

section 271(1)((c) of the Act as no satisfactory explanation was offered, nor he could prove that the omission to declare the income was bona fide. Hence, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for dissenting with the view held by the Ld. CIT(A), who was rightly confirmed the penalty imposed u/s

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there

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 consequent to\ndisallowance of Rs.28,30,401/- being PF and ESI contributions paid beyond the\nstipulated period when such a disallowance does not lead to any concealment of income\nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant any penalty.\"\n10.1.\nAfter hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material\non record, we find

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on 30.09.2021 along with assessment order. 5.2 Here, I would like to re-produced section 275 of the Act which deal with ‘Bar of limitation for imposing penalties’: Section 275: ITA Nos.626 & 627/KOL/2025 Kailash Kumar Tibrewal; A.Y. 2015-16 1. No order imposing a penalty under this chapter shall

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on 30.09.2021 along with assessment order. 5.2 Here, I would like to re-produced section 275 of the Act which deal with ‘Bar of limitation for imposing penalties’: Section 275: ITA Nos.626 & 627/KOL/2025 Kailash Kumar Tibrewal; A.Y. 2015-16 1. No order imposing a penalty under this chapter shall

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because