DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

penalty imposed by the Ld. AO. u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 15. However, the notice u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 6.3. We find that the assessee had made a disclosure statement u/s 132(4) of the Act after the search offering undisclosed income, explaining the manner in which such income was derived I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 9 of 14

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14. Ground No. 2 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for not considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14. Ground No. 2 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for not considering the fact that in the original assessment order u/s 147, the Ld. AO had initiated the penalty alleging the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), the penalty was imposed alleging the assessee

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

14. Further, in the present case, it appears from the record that the assesses had satisfied all the conditions which are required for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under section 271(1)(c )of the Act. The provsion does not specify any time limit during which the aforesaid amount i.e the amount of penalty with interest

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

14. Further, in the present case, it appears from the record that the assesses had satisfied all the conditions which are required for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under section 271(1)(c )of the Act. The provsion does not specify any time limit during which the aforesaid amount i.e the amount of penalty with interest

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act alo u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the draft assessment lead ng with the draft assessment leads to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C of the to a conclusion that the draft

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14 n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

14 imposing a penalty of Rs.31,00,000/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. Before the ld. First Appellate Before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee contended that the three cond Authority, the assessee contended that the three conditions specified in Section 271AAB itions specified in Section 271AAB

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has therefore filed an additional ground which reads as follows :- “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,89,343 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Year

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has therefore filed an additional ground which reads as follows :- “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,89,343 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Year

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

14. Aggrieved by the order of AO in imposing penalty, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). The specific contention was made before the CIT(A) that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory for the reasons as there was no concealment of income, return was filed within due date, manner of earning income was also specified

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

14. Aggrieved by the order of AO in imposing penalty, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). The specific contention was made before the CIT(A) that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory for the reasons as there was no concealment of income, return was filed within due date, manner of earning income was also specified