BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T-CIRCLE-I, KOLKATA, SILIGURI

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

125% of the tax sought to be evaded. ITA NO.2482/Kol/2013-Brij Kishore Prasad-A.Y.2009-10 7. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

125 ITR 408 [All]. G. As the assessee has failed to submit the precise details of expenses, it is estimated to be Rs.2,00,000/- and is added to the income. H. Short term capital gains:- The Assessee has earned a short term capital gains of Rs.10,38,101/- from the purchase/sale of such mutual ITA No.1303/Kol/2010

DDIT(IT) - 2(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. RAJ NARAYAN SINHA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 31st March 2010. The penalty was levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income after relying in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [166 taxman 65 (SC) where it was held that ITA No.867/Kol/2013

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

penalty notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act dated 25/03/2015. A perusal of the notice reveals that it is in a pre drafted Performa and mentions both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4 I.T.A. No. 2157/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dey Trading Co. as, “have Concealed the particulars of your income or …….. Furnished inaccurate particulars

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

sections 23(b) & 23(c) which prescribe actual rent received or receivable' as the basis. The assessee’s explanation is therefore unacceptable. It can not therefore be denied that there has been concealment of particulars of income in respect of rent in the original return and penalty u/s 271 (I )(c) is imposable. 8. Regarding the concealment by introduction

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

HARI PRASAD RATHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Section 274 dated 31.03.2015wherein the AO has issued a notice in a mechanical form without application of mind as to on which limb the penalty was proposed to be evaded. In other words the AO has not mentioned in the notice on what charge the penalty was proposed to be levied and thus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

271(1) ( c) has been given without striking out which specific offence is proposed to be charged against the assessee) as well as against levy of sec. 271AAB of the Act vide notice dt. 31.3.2016 ( refer to page 63 of paper book) and, thereafter, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act after observing as under

MD. SHAMSAD ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2124/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Md. Shamsad Alam, Vs. The Ito, Ward-53(1), (Proprietor Of : M/S 2, Gariahat Road (S) M.S.Drum Suppliers), Kolkata-700068 25/6/F, Am Ghosh Road, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (S), Kolkata-700137 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpa 5230 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.49/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward53(1)/Kol/12-13, Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27/12/2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,93,600/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The 2 Md. Shamsad Alam

125/- on account of depreciation on Tanker, Rs.1,33,737/-on account of discrepancies in Loan & Advances, Rs.2,87,105/-on account of interest paid for Tanker purchase, Rs.1,23,876/-on account of Tanker hire charges, and Rs.51,650/- on account of car maintenance. While making the assessment, the AO observed that assessee has claimed Car maintenance expenses whereas

SRI JAYANTA SAHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

125/- was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to dismiss the same on 19.02.2014. However, the said order was infact received by the assessee only on 29.03.2014. The Ld. AR submitted that last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was on 28.05.2014, however, since the assessee filed this appeal only

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income are mentioned but one of the element not applicable to the assessee has not been struck off. In these given condition, both the sides have referred and relied on the judicial precedents. However, in view of judgment

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent