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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Act. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 were\ninitiated after recording reasons and seeking prior approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax.\nAccordingly, statutory notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued & sent to the assessee by DIN &\nDocument No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032066973(1) dated 31.03.2021 through E-mail requiring\nthe assessee to file his Income Tax Return

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

144, dated 26.03.2014, demand notice u/s 156, penalty notice dated 26.03.2014 and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 30.09.2014 for your necessary action In this regard this is also to inform you that the following demands along with interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act are still outstanding. SI Asst. Section

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

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 in Switzerland. The assessee

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

144 read with Section 144B of the Act. A penalty proceeding has also been initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and penalty

RAHUL SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) while not giving proper opportunity to the appellant for explaining the issues related to the additions. 2. That the Appellant craves leave to add any additional grounds or modify, withdrew any grounds as made hereinabove at the time of hearing proceeding.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SANJEEV PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144/ 147 of the Act,\nafter making addition of unexplained unsecured loan of Rs. 5,00,060/-\nu/s 69A of the Act. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was duly initiated.\nSubsequently, the case was fixed for hearing. As none appeared,\npenalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was imposed by an\norder

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

144 read with section 144B and u/s. 250 by CIT(A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio being passed against the facts and laws applicable in the instant case and further being passed in violations of the settled Principles of Law and Natural Justice. 5. That the Notice

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]

144 of the Act against the assessee. As the assessee failed to adhere to the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, the AO levied penalty u/s 271B of the Act @ 0.05% ot total turnover of Rs. 2,21,93,393/- which amounted to Rs. 1,10,966/-. 3 AY: 2017-18 Dipankar Sarkar 3. Aggrieved by the above order

SRI SANAT KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (I.T.), CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

144 had only given relief to the extent of Rs. 8,22,519/-. The Ld. CIT(A) had failed to understand that the erstwhile Ld. CIT(A) in the said order dt. 25.7.2017 had not only disallowed the deduction in respect of Rs.1,56,793/- from computing the income under salaries but on the other hand had allowed the said

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on two occasions and accordingly levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each default thereby imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in the order passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 08.02.2022. 3. The assessee assailed the said order before ld. CIT(A), however, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SONWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

144 of the Act by making following additions: i. Short Term Capital Gain u/s 45 amounting to Rs. 2,25,001/-. ii. Income from other sources u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 84,644/-. iii. Salary Received u/s 15 amounting to Rs. 34,64,292/-. iv. Unexplained Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We will first take ITA Nos. 487 & 489/KOL/2022 and since the issues raised are identical, we will take up the grounds for AY 2010-11 which reads as follows: “(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made