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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

3)/263 read with section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (R. Kiruthiga) DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok”. 8. The ld. Assessing Officer

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,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

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

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

3,68,938/- vide order dated 01.02.2022.\n4. The Id. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Id. AO by upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by treating

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,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

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