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]

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply wth/a notice u/s.22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax 1961. * have concealed the párticulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.. The appellant has submitted that

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]

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply wth/a notice u/s.22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax 1961. * have concealed the párticulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.. The appellant has submitted that

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also the judicial pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also the judicial pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also the judicial pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also the judicial pronouncements as per para 8.1 to uphold the order of the AO which are as under: (i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), (ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842] (iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244. 9

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)

139/- Total Income Rs.2,375,349/- Assessed Total Income Rounded off to Rs.2,375,350/- 9 Amitabha Sanyal; AY: 2011-12 Issue copy of order, demand notice and penalty notices to the assessee. Tax payable is computed as per separate sheet enclosed.” 10.1 Recently, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thakur Prasad

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

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

9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

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

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

9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

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

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

9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the\nsame provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a\nperson has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nsuch income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of\nIndia v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9. We have considered the submission made and since the claim that no such deduction was claimed or allowed in the earlier years of investment has been countered by the Ld. DR nor any counter evidence could be either submitted or any counter argument could be advanced by the Ld. DR, therefore, as per the provisions of section 80CCC

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

139/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the assessee concealed particular of income where the assessee has himself withdrawn the said claim during the assessment proceeding and offered the income to tax. We also note that the AO has not found anything incorrect in the claim u/s. 10(38) of the Act and simply after

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2014, reporting total income of Rs. Nil, after set off of brought forward loss of 2 Height Insurance Services Ltd., AY 2014-15 Rs.1,00,92,344/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward

DIPANKAR SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22,KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

271 of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. However, the core issue for adjudication before us against the order passed u/s 271B of the Act by the AO whereby penalty of Rs. 1,10,966/- was imposed towards alleged failure to furnish audited accounts within time

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 139(1) not the assessee has furnished any documentary evidence that the assessee trust is eligible for exemption u/s 11(1)(A) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee at Rs.3,98,75,551/- is disallowed and the income of the assessee trust is assessed at Rs.3,98,75,551/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

9. That the Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in not considering that the return of income filed by the Shree Shyam Trading Company (Prop. Satya Narayan More, PAN: CRHPM0358P) were not rejected by the Assessing Officer of said party and that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

139 of the Act. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee had issued 35,000 number of shares at a face value of ₹ 10/- and raised share capital of ₹3,50,000/- with share premium of ₹2,24,00,000/- at a premium of ₹640/- per share. On perusal of the list

UTPAL DORJEE YONGDA,PELLING, WEST SIKKIM vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 13th September, 2022 passed in both these assessment years. These orders have been upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his orders dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed in A.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. 3. We take quantum appeals first. The grounds of appeal