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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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)

148 of the Act and the income assessed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Hence, in view of the Hon'ble High Court’s decision in case of M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly, direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied. Hence, ground

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

148 of the Act and the income assessed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Hence, in view of the Hon'ble High Court’s decision in case of M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly, direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied. Hence, ground

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

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

2\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited; 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17\n3.\nThe facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income at ₹20,62,50,250/- and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148. It needs also to be mentioned that the fact that the impugned order was passed by the AO after some days after the date fixed for the hearing of the appellant, does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings, nor does it imply that the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity. The appellant has brought nothing