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 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

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

u/s 154 of the Act can therefore be only restricted to the issue with regard to whether the assesse has paid tax and interest on the income disclosed as required under Explanation (5) to section 271 of the Act. On this issue the only objection of the revenue is that the payment of taxes ought to have been made

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act as to whether the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In support of this, he also filed the copy of show cause notice issued for penalty by the Learned AO. In response to this, the Learned DR vehemently objected to the admission

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. In this regard, the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal) is very well founded. It was held in that case as under:- 2. Mr. J.P. Khaitan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BASANTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Basanti Properties 2(3), Roomno403, 4Th Pvt. Ltd., 107/1, Park Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Street, Kolkata-16 Poorva,110, Shanti [Pan No.Aabcb 0344 E] Pally, E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2014 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Shri G. Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue & Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

133A of the Act on 13.02.2013 wherein assessee admitted an additional income of Rs.4.50 crores which was duly disclosed in the income tax return. In respect of the above income the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

271(1)(c) of the Act, that penalty is automatic in respect of income declared in a return of income filed pursuant to a search on or after 1.6.2007. The CIT(A) however held that ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) imposition of penalty at 300% of the tax sought

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

271(1)(c) of the Act, that penalty is automatic in respect of income declared in a return of income filed pursuant to a search on or after 1.6.2007. The CIT(A) however held that ITA No. 1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 & ITA Nos. 1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 M/S.Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) imposition of penalty at 300% of the tax sought

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted and hence the same stands cancelled.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 9. Before us Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of AO whereas Ld. AR submitted that the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

133A of the Act was also carried out simultaneously at different places of business of the Group at Joda (Orissa), Rourkela (Orissa), Jamshedpur and Tirildih (Jamshedpur). A disclosure u/s 132(4) of the Act for Rs. 10,63,00,000/- was made by Mr.R.P.Sao, Director of the company for Asst Year 2007- 08 , which was also followed by filing

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s. 271(1) ( c ) of the Act. The ITAT has held as under:- “6. We shall now deal with the question whether proper satisfaction was arrived at by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), in the course of concluding the assessment proceedings, wherein the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed were made. On the above

M/S SUN - KWIK APPLIANCES PVT LTD.(FORMERLY PUSHPANJALI APPLIANCES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVI,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

133A of the Act. During the course of search operation, books of account and other documents were impounded and seized. The seized documents contained the incrementing material pertaining to the assessee for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued upon the assessee. In response to notice assessee submitted its return of income

ATIBIR HI-TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

133A of the Act was conducted in the factory premises of the assessee on 24.1.2008 wherein the stocks were inventorized by employing a surveyor. The Learned AO observed that the stock of materials found at the factory was more than the stock recorded in the books to the tune of Rs. 7,05,210/- which was added as undisclosed income

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 143(3)/153C completed on 31.12.2009. 4. That the Departmnet craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additonal evidence at the time of hearing of the case. “ 2. The solitary issue raised by Revenue in all the grounds of appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GALLON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

133A was conducted on 05.05.2014 on Shri Adish Jain and group in which a total disclosure of Rs.20,79,41,930/- was made. Subsequently, it was revised to Rs.23,33,19,194/- out of which Rs.1,68,95,974/- was disclosed in the case of the assessee company for the relevant year. Further, the instant case was reopened u/s

M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 27-01-2011 & 28-01-2011. During the survey proceedings receipt of Rs.79,63,087/- was found for the A.Y under consideration. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 Of the Act was issued on 15-02-2011. In response to which, the assessee had filed its return

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.P NIRMAN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.883/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit, Cir-5/Kol, Vs. M/S J.P.Nirman Pvt. Ltd., P-7, Chowringhee Square, 19, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 7666 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Ku. Kureel, Jcit, Sr-Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, Kolkata In Appeal No.32/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-5/11-12/Kol, Dated 22.11.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.05.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The A Survey U/S 133A Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted At The Office Premises Of The Assessee On 14.01.2008 & It Was Found That The Assessee Had Certain Transactions Which Were Out Of Books. During The Course Of Assessment It Was Found That The Assessee Had Disclosed The Unexplained Income/Receipts As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Account. The Cash Received Was Actually On Money Received By The Assessee For Sale Of Flats The Assessee Did Not Disclosed The Unaccounted Income In The Manner In Which It Has Been M/S J.P.Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Earned. Accordingly Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Was Imposed By The Assessing

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 27.05.2011. 2. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the a survey U/s 133A of the I.T. Act was conducted at the office premises of the assessee on 14.01.2008 and it was found that the assessee had certain transactions which