DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty provided under exception (2) to Explanation – 5 of Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, without appreciating that the said immunity is available only for the years for which due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act has not expired on the date of search, which was not satisfied in this case. 2. That on the facts

ORIENTAL RELAYS LLP (SUCCESSOR TO ORIENTAL RELAYS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Oriental Relays Llp Pan No. Aahfo5108L Acit, Circle 8(2), (Successor To Oriental Relays Aaykar Bhavan, P7, Pvt. Ltd Pan No. Aaaco3456H) Chowringhee Square, Vs. 2Nd Floor, S.B. Tower, 37 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant)

159/-, which was affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 04. Now, the assessee has challenged the order of ld. CIT (A) on the ground that since the penalty order was passed in consequence to invalid notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, all the consequential proceedings/ orders are invalid and may be quashed. The ld. AR referred

MANOJ KUMAR SHAW ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No.1291/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Manoj Kumar Shaw................................…………………………............................................Appellant Maheswari Appartment, 13, Khetra Chatterjee Lane,Salkia, Howrah – 711 106 [Pan: Atmps 3105 M] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Ward – 46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, Dr & Shri Shankar Halder, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 14, Kolkata Dated 04.11.2015 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 3,24,159/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Hossiery Goods. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 15.03.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,03,080/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 24.11.2011, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 14,14,441/- After Making Inter Alia The Addition Of Rs. 9,80,000/- On Account Of Undisclosed Investment In Mutual Fund. Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Were Also Initiated By The Ao & Since The Explanation

159/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

159 days and delay condonation petitions have been filed which is placed in the file. After considering the reasons cited in the condonation petitions along with the medical reports, we are of the view that the assessee has reasonable cause for condoning the delay and we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

159 days and delay condonation petitions have been filed which is placed in the file. After considering the reasons cited in the condonation petitions along with the medical reports, we are of the view that the assessee has reasonable cause for condoning the delay and we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal

SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

159 days and delay condonation petitions have been filed which is placed in the file. After considering the reasons cited in the condonation petitions along with the medical reports, we are of the view that the assessee has reasonable cause for condoning the delay and we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In this appeal

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

159,953 to the Arm's Length Price (hereinafter referred as ALP') of the international transaction relating to Management Support Services received by the Appellant and in not accepting the ALP of the international transaction as recorded in the books of account of the Appellant: 2.2 Concluding the ALP for services provided by the Associated Enterprise AE') to the Appellant

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

159,953 to the Arm's Length Price (hereinafter referred as ALP') of the international transaction relating to Management Support Services received by the Appellant and in not accepting the ALP of the international transaction as recorded in the books of account of the Appellant: 2.2 Concluding the ALP for services provided by the Associated Enterprise AE') to the Appellant

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. We would first take

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. We would first take

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue’s case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. P & P HIGHRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately. Issue necessary forms, demand notice, penalty notice and copy of order to the assessee Give credit to prepaid taxes. Computation of tax is enclosed winch is an integral part of this order. (SANJAY JHA) ACIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA” 5. While impugning this finding, the assessee contended before

ITO, WARD-6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ADVENT STOCK MANAGEMENT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 68 of the Act, can be made, when the Directors have otherwise confirmed the transaction to the Assessing Officer with evidence. 6.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as follows:- 6 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Advent Stock Management

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

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

159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

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

159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

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

159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order