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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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

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

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

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 IT Act, 1961 dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceeding. Therefore, it is apparent that till 13.04.2022, no penalty order had been passed by the Ld. A.O. and that the penalty order dated 31.03.2022 is antedated to comply with the provisions of section

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 IT Act, 1961 dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceeding. Therefore, it is apparent that till 13.04.2022, no penalty order had been passed by the Ld. A.O. and that the penalty order dated 31.03.2022 is antedated to comply with the provisions of section

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case