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]

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 the AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), failed to specify the particular condition or limb for which penalty

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]

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 the AO had, in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c), failed to specify the particular condition or limb for which penalty

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,25,800/-\nRs. 21,06,182/-\nRs. 23,31,982/-.\nIssue Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nAssessed issue requisite documents to the assessee.\nPage 9\nITA Nos. 2229 & 2230/KOL/2024\nMD. Mahimud SK; A.Y. 15-16 & 2017-18\nThis order is being passed u/s 147/143(3) r.w.s

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

2) and 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter assessment of the assessee company was completed by making disallowance of Rs. 6,50,000/- on account of bogus trading loss on penny stocks claimed by the assessee and separate penalty proceeding initiated by the AO by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- vide penalty order u/s 271

RAJROOP DOSHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also\nset aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed.\n2.4. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-\nordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra).\nFor the sake of ready reference

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

142(1) of the Act were issued along with a questionnaire. The assessee responded to all notices and queries accordingly. The assessee is engaged in the business of investment activities. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had received shares of company not being a company in which public

MANOJ KUMAR PATODIA,WEST BENGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty-imposed u/s. 271 (1 )(b) to the extent of Rs.30,000/- was done even though he had complied with the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Acton 05.02.2015. 8.1.2. However, the AO stated that on 05.02.2015, the assessee was requested to provide a bank statement related to an account alleged to be held with HSBC

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the\nappellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal\nstood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to\nissue the Notice had already expired. However, the assessment was\ncompleted u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014 assessing the\ntotal income

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1) of the Act on the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 62,59,440/- u/s 68 of the Act. 1.2. The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievances against the Ld. AO but could not succeed fully since the matter was remanded back to the file of Ld. AO with the following

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the appellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal stood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to issue the Notice had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014 assessing the total income

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the appellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal stood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to issue the Notice had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014 assessing the total income

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served on the appellant although the impugned assessment for the year under appeal stood completed since no proceedings were pending and the last date to issue the Notice had already expired. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2014 assessing the total income

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

142(1) of the Act dated 09.01.2015 was issued by ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata, copy of which is available at page no.3 of the Paper Book. Finally, the assessment was framed by ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata by making an addition of ₹7,50,00,000/- vide order dated 26.03.2016, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Pertinent

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c); the proceedings so initiated needs to be dropped; 7. For that the appellant craves leave to add, to modify/alter, to withdraw any ground/s of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 9. Brief facts of the case as evident from the record are that the assessee had e-filed the return of income

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional