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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act with regard to the same. In this regard, it is relevant to place reliance on the decision of coordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Shayam Sunder Beriwal (Kolkata Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 1061 , 1062 & 1063 / Kol / 2008 dated 31.10.2008 for the Asst Years

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

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty

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

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty

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

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty

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

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

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

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

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

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

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

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,600/- is confirmed. The ground no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 6. Shri S.L. Kochar and Shri Anil Kochar, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act with regard to the same. In this regard, it is relevant to place reliance on the decision of coordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Shayam Sunder Beriwal (Kolkata Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 1061 , 1062 & 1063 / Kol / 2008 dated 31.10.2008 for the Asst Years

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act with regard to the same. In this regard, it is relevant to place reliance on the decision of coordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Shayam Sunder Beriwal (Kolkata Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 1061 , 1062 & 1063 / Kol / 2008 dated 31.10.2008 for the Asst Years

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 :-

271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal notices and are are illegal notices and are void-ab-initio. In the case-law relied upon by the ld. law relied upon by the ld. Counsel, these notices u/s 156 and 274 of the Act, might have been held to be valid Counsel, these notices u/s

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 of the Act on 31/03/2015 proposing to levy penalty. The notice reads as follows: proposing to levy penalty. The notice reads as follows:- “ 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Rashmi Jalan 2.1.1. The assessee filed a written submission on 14/09/2015. Thereafter the The assessee filed a written submission on 14/09/2015. Thereafter the The assessee filed a written submission

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

153C of the Act has been accepted by AO with the assessment proceedings and no addition whatsoever was warranted to the total income of assessee. Accordingly, there is no scope for levying penalty on account of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1869-70/Kol/2013 A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 DCIT CC-VII, Kol. Vs. Sh S.S.Dhanuka

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

153C are equivalent to proceedings initiated u/s 153A and, therefore, In the case of appellant for A.Y. 2010-11, being the specified year, the penalty proceedings, If at all applicable, would be u/s 271AAA and not u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the contention of the appellant was not accepted by the AO for the reason as mentioned

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 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. 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, 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. 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