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

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held taking a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income

ANISHA ESTATE & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the written submissions dt. 08-11-2017 and the case laws relied upon by the Ld.DR. We find the same set of written submissions were filed before the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

149 TTJ (Ctk)(UO) 36, the Hon'ble ITAT Cuttak Bench has held that levy of penalty U/S 271AAA was not justified on the ground that the assessee failed to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income admitted u/s 132(4) was derived. In the case of DCIT vs Sulochanadevi A Agarwal ITA No I.T.A. No. 1083/KOL./2013 Assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SURUCHI VIHAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.233/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(3), -Vs.- M/S. Suruchi Vihar Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aagcs 6819 N] (Revenue) (Assessee) & Co No.35/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Suruchi Vihar Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Acit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aagcs 6819 N] (Assessee) (Revenue)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

BIJAY KUMAR SHAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

TRADELINK SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR further brought to our notice that

TRADELINK SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR further brought to our notice that

YADRAM AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SAFIUL MALLICK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27,HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

OCTAGON ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

M/S AKSHAY KUMAR GHOSH & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-34(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

M/S. PRECISION TRANSMISION CHAIN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 24(2), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri S. S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SMT. APARNA BISWAS ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that