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

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

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in proposed new section. It is also proposed to provide that the provisions of section 274 and section 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed

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

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

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

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

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

c). 13. The Ld AR has explained that the contention of the AO that the disclosure made uls 132(4) was not included in the return filed u/s 139(1) was not only factually incorrect but also misleading. For, the disclosure was made on the conclusion of the search on 07-11-2009 when the return u/s 139(1

SHRI SHYAMAL GOPAL CHATTOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is 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

M/S. YACHIO ENGINEERING CO. LTD., [REPRESENTED BY HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS],KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX) - II, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am] I.T.A. No. 337/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

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