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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure under section

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience we pass a common order. Therefore, we take up the assessment year 2005-06 as the base year. 4. The facts the case are that there was a search and seizure under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 8 Observation of the AO. 1. This is to bring to the record that there is no mention of the fact that if evidence is not detected commensurate to the disclosed income, then for that part penalty

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

131 was issued by the Director General of Investigation, Kolkata requiring the assessee to appear personally on 30.09.2011. In response to the said notice, the assessee appeared on 30.09.2011 and in his statement recorded on that date, he reiterated the stand taken in the declaration filed on 26.09.2011. Thereafter the assessee filed his return of income

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

131 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.25,78,480/-. Subsequently, the order was rectified u/s 154 on 29.12.2011 and assessed the total income at Rs.38,78,480/- . Thus, the AO had made addition of Rs.23 lakhs to the returned

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

penalty levied by Assessing Officer as per Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before coming to the specific issue let us understand the history of the case. In the present case the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction, real estate and other related contractual jobs. There was a search

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

section 271(1)(c)of the IT Act, as its equivalent, 'concealment of income', and suggestiofalsi', literally, 'suggesting or stating a falsehood', which manifests itself as 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under