BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by\ntreating the sales made by the assessee to SR Trading of ₹11,31,000/-\nas bogus. We note that the sales were duly recorded in the books of\naccount

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been initiated against the assessee on this point for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income. 5. It is found that the assessee has shown Rs. 14,00,000/- as current investments in equity as on 31.03.2012. No such is found

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also initiated. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee had arranged pre- arranged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 63,76,486/- through the entry operators who facilitates such accommodation entry on receipt of commission only. As reported by the Investigation Directorate, the entry operators charge a commission

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively through calculation Sheet and demand notice without passing a specific order in this regard. 6. That the Ld. AO was wrong in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. The Order passed by Ld. AO is unjust, unfair, illegal and invalid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has not been pressed by the appellant. This ground is therefore dismissed. Ground 5 is general in nature and needs no adjudication and does not need further adjudication. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed by the additions made on account of share capital and share premium