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

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DEHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

271, 271A, 271AAA, 271AAB and 271AAC etc. where the legislature has used the word “may” stated that the Assessing Officer may impose or forward penalty meaning thereby that legislature has given a discretion to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the literal rule of interpretation has to be followed for interpretation of the provisions

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

UMANG WEBTECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income of Rs. 35,00,000/-. In course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed loss of Rs. 18,26,160/- in the current year. In spite of given number of opportunities as discussed in foregoing para the assessee failed

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.”\n\nFacts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.”\nFacts of the case as stated in the order