CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In that order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as illegal and invalid since none of the conditions precedent for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act existed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty with respect to disallowance

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

14A of the Act. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order wherein AO made additions in respect to these three items and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect to these three items by observing that “penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

14A of the Act and 1/5th of compensation paid to Government. On first appeal in quantum proceedings, the Learned CITA granted relief to the extent of Rs. 54,91,493/- out of total additions made to the extent of Rs. 58,42,500/-. The Learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the income disclosed u/s

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

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

14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section 271

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

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

14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7,50,000/-“. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He ultimately imposed a penalty upon the assessee under section 271

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. Assessment

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. Assessment

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

14A, amortization of capital issue expenditure. Thus, it is noted that the total undisclosed income of Rs.3,78,57,991/- which was offered as undisclosed income of assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was taxed by AO. 7. Thereafter, the AO had initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA of the Act on the additional income admitted by the assessee

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

14A, amortization of capital issue expenditure. Thus, it is noted that the total undisclosed income of Rs.3,78,57,991/- which was offered as undisclosed income of assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was taxed by AO. 7. Thereafter, the AO had initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA of the Act on the additional income admitted by the assessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE JUTE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

u/s. 43B of the Act on account of taxes, cess, PF and also filed all the relevant details. The assessee has also furnished all the necessary particulars in Tax audit Report and also given notes in its computation of total income. We find that now this issue, in the given facts, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

MAA CHINTPOORNI TIE-UP PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The AO also observed that the assessee has average investment of Rs.8,66,93,038/- being the average of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 invested in shares, income from which in the form of dividend, Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 irrespective of the fact

MAA CHINTPOORNI TIE-UP PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The AO also observed that the assessee has average investment of Rs.8,66,93,038/- being the average of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 invested in shares, income from which in the form of dividend, Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2015-16 irrespective of the fact

M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

penalty u/s 271 (1 )( c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, overlooking the fact that the appellant ITA No. 202/Kol/14 M/s. Twenty First Century Securities Ltd 1 assessee had furnished all the relevant informing relating to the assessment for the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [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: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of payment of interest on housing loan, we note that said deduction was available only in respect of loan taken for purchase of house property and the assessee provided true and fully disclosure of details of income, loan details etc. We have gone through the cited decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts