M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

b) The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non-est in law for the est in law for the reason that, the penalty notice did not mention the specific charge i.e. reason that, the penalty notice did not mention the specific charge i.e. reason

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

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

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' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

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

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' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

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

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' as per sub-clause (i) of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA, which provides that a 'specified previous year' means a 'previous year' which

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 477/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Late Baijnath Agarwal Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata. (PAN: ACTPA4174A) Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2017 In I.T.A

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

153A 2 ITA Nos. 887-893/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2006-2007 to 2012-2013 were issued by the Assessing Officer, in response to which, the returns of income for the years under consideration were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings for all the seven years under consideration, notices under section 142(1) were issued

RANJIT KUMAR PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

153A 2 ITA Nos. 880-886/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 20062007 to 2012-2013 were issued by the Assessing Officer, in response to which, the returns of income for the years under consideration were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings for all the seven years under consideration, notices under section 142(1) were issued by the Assessing

SHRI RAVI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c). However, on careful consideration of the facts and going through the amended provisions of section 271(1)(c) along with Explanation 5A, I am not inclined to agree with the submission

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

153A of the Act was issued by the Kolkata jurisdictional officer on 3.8.2009 and the returns were filed by the assessee on 31.8.2009. We find that on the date of giving sworn statement u/s 132(4) of the Act on the date of search, the amended provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

153A of the Act was issued by the Kolkata jurisdictional officer on 3.8.2009 and the returns were filed by the assessee on 31.8.2009. We find that on the date of giving sworn statement u/s 132(4) of the Act on the date of search, the amended provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

153A the above unaccounted income 1 investment was duly declared. Now ITA Nos. 921 & 922/Kol/2011-C-JM 7 M/s. Dhansar Engg.P.Ltd the issue to be decided whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and is liable for penalty under section 271(1) (C) of the Act. 4.1 According

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, unless,— (1 ) such income is, or the transactions resulting in such income are recorded,— (i) in a case falling under clause (a), before the date of the search

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, unless,— (1 ) such income is, or the transactions resulting in such income are recorded,— (i) in a case falling under clause (a), before the date of the search

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

u/s 153A of the Act. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Brijendra Gupta in ITA No. 330 of 2009 dated 8.6.2015 , wherein the question raised before their Lordships and their decision rendered thereon is as under:- The following question of law was suggested

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

153A, if any. 14. Further, in the present case, it appears from the record that the assesses had satisfied all the conditions which are required for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under section 271(1)(c )of the Act. The provision does not specify any time limit during which the aforesaid amount i.e the amount of penalty with interest

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

153A is equivalent to the return filed u/s. 139(1) and hence even the penalty is not leviable by applying provisions of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)©. However, on careful consideration of the facts and going through the amended provisions of section 271(1)© along with Explanation 5A, I am not inclined to agree with the submission