KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

153(3) of the Act.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “1. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in dismissing the first ground of appeal wherein the Appellant Assessee challenged the Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass the impugned assessment order dated 26th March 2014 under section

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

u/s 92CA(4) of the Act and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to deal with the invalid draft assessment order. 3.8 In view of our decision at Para 3.7 above, there is no need of DRP directions on Ground of objections between No. 2 to 5.” 3. A perusal of the above DRP order would reveal that DRP has categorically

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.” Additional

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.” Additional

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

153-B of the Act the assessment order has to in fact be communicated to the Assessee on or before 31st December, 2016 and therefore, was time barred, the Assessee assailed the said order before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] apart from other grounds. However, the CIT (A) observed that the assessment order was dated 30th December

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

153-B of the Act the assessment order has to in fact be communicated to the Assessee on or before 31st December, 2016 and therefore, was time barred, the Assessee assailed the said order before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] apart from other grounds. However, the CIT (A) observed that the assessment order was dated 30th December

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

u/s 143(3)/144C(13) read with second proviso to Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT (IT), Circle-1(2), Kolkata dated 11.07.2018. I.T.A. No.: 1936/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Koninklijke Philips N.V. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. Taxability of receipts

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]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

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]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

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]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

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]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

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]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2016-17 and he was sent on an assignment to United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition: Rs. 1,75,00,000/-] 12. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant/Ld A.R for the appellant has submitted as under: ‘Commission paid to Naresh P Ojha Rs. 105,00,000/- and Ms. Udita Koya Rs. 70,00,000/- It is hereby submitted that Ms. Udita Koya

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee