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

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

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

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

271(l)(c) is initiated, there is no question of not initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on that addition again made in subsequent revised order, specially when that addition is confirmed in appellate proceeding. Therefore, non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) on same addition in the revised order is nothing but an error committed

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

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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

1) of section 271 AAA. In such a scenario, penalty is liable to be imposed on undisclosed income of the 'specified previous year' u/s 271 AAA alone. The AO has treated assessment year 2009-10 as the 'specified previous year' and imposed the instant penalty. 7. Now the question arises about the determination of the 'specified previous year

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 (1

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

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

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

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

153, 161 / (Cal.), • Decom Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (164 CTR 230). 8 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 • RDB Industries Ltd vs DCIT 120 ITJ 107 (Kol). • CIT v. Punjab FinanciaL Corpomtion Ltd.. [2007] 295 ITR 510 (Punj. & Har.) • Khimji Visram & Sons (Gujrat) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 79 Taxman 112 (Guj) • CIT v. Akkem

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

153, 161 / (Cal.), • Decom Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (164 CTR 230). 8 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 • RDB Industries Ltd vs DCIT 120 ITJ 107 (Kol). • CIT v. Punjab FinanciaL Corpomtion Ltd.. [2007] 295 ITR 510 (Punj. & Har.) • Khimji Visram & Sons (Gujrat) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 79 Taxman 112 (Guj) • CIT v. Akkem

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

153,98,09,000/- Expenditure debited to P& L Account 181,98,66,000/- Less Bank Interest and charges 3,58,73,000/- Operating Expenditure 178,39,93,000/- Operating Profit 24,41,84,000/- Operating Profit/Operating Cost (-)13.68% Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (-)15.85% 3.6. The ld TPO keeping in view of the business process carried out by the assessee, came

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-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