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

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

151/- 11,73,880/- 5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 to 4 are allowed.” ITA No.1487/Kol/2012 M/s. Concast Steel & Power Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The ld. DR before us submitted that the seized documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DEHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151 read\nwith section 144B of the Act when it did not have any power under\nany notification. First of all we shall adjudicate the additional ground\nraised in A.Y. 2015-16 which is extracted below:-\n“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAssessment Centre (NFAC) erred in having assumed jurisdiction

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

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

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SRI BISHWANATH GARODIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos

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

penalty appeals being ITA Nos. 853 & 855/KOL/2016 for the sake of convenience. I.T.A. Nos. 853 & 854/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & I.T.A. Nos. 855 & 856/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 20 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are as follow:- The assessee in the present case is an individual, who belongs

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023, respectively. Since the issues in both\nthe appeals are for the same assessee, they were heard together and are\nbeing decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and\nbrevity\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023, respectively. Since the issues in both\nthe appeals are for the same assessee, they were heard together and are\nbeing decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and\nbrevity\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025