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

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

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. in this regard also, referred to another decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sudershan Talkies reported in 200 ITR 153(Delhi). I have considered the above case laws relied upon by the ld. A.R. After going through these case laws, it has been

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

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

153 (3) (ii) of the Act which would apply. Mr Jain submitted that the requirement of passing a draft assessment order under Section 144C was only in the first instance and not after the remand by the ITAT. 17. The Court is unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue by Mr. Jain. Section 144C

M/S WANDERLAND REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

153 r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.03.2013 for assessment year 2008-09. The penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.09.2013 by the Assessing Officer. ITA No.380/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Wanderland Real Estate

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about the ex-parte orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders

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

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

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

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

penalty proceedings under sections 271 (1 )(c) of the Act 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice either before or during the course of appeal proceedings.” 12 I.T.A. No. 572/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dongfang Electric Corporation 3.1. The assessee filed