DDIT(IT) - 2(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. RAJ NARAYAN SINHA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 31st March 2010. The penalty was levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income after relying in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [166 taxman 65 (SC) where it was held that ITA No.867/Kol/2013

ABHIJIT GHOSH DASTIDAR,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the A

183/- respectively imposed u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act by the AO. 2. At the outset, the ld.AR submits that the issue raised in all the appeals are covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows. He also submits that the AO imposed penalty on defective notices issued u/s

M/S/ SUBARNA RICE MILL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

183/-. According to AO, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the tune of Rs.45,76,023/- within the meaning of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, he was of the opinion that it is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.11

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about the ex-parte orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

DCIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KOLKATA PORT TRUST , KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

DCIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KOLKATA PORT TRUST , KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

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

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

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

RAMESHWAR SHAW,HOWRAH vs. ITO, 48(3),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 841/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Rameshwar Shaw,....................................Appellant 12/5, Musalmanpara Lane, Banta, Howrah-711101 [Pan: Amaps0893D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-48(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2024

183 of the paper book. The assessee is a regular return filer under VAT/CST Act bearing VAT RC No.19693110042 and is enjoying ITC from the authority. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice dated 09.03.2016, which was received by the assessee on 14.03.2016 and the date of hearing was fixed for replying

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

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

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

DDIT(IT)-1(1)KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S JOY PARTNERSHIP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 149/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ddit(It)-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Joy Partnership [Pan: Aadfj 6427 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is, therefore, initiated separately for disallowance of Rs.l,89,41,265/- . 4.3. The amount of exchange loss of Rs. 51,69,208/- is inclusive of Rs. 13,98,364/- in respect of which the assessee was able to identify the employees. The balance of Rs. 37,70,844/-(5169208-1398364) is purely an estimated

SAAB TECHNOLOGIES B.V.(FORMERLY KNOWN S ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 153/KOL/2022 is allowed

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

u/s 288B 37,64,480 The order is made as above in terms of provisions of section 144C (I) of the Act. The assessee is entitled to tile its acceptance of the order in terms of clause (a) or file its objections in terms of clause (b) of section I44C (2). The final assessment order is to be passed thereafter

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

183 Total 339,17,83,606 55,67,53,773 394,85,37,379 The assessee provided the details about the receipt of services and the benefits from them by way of mails received from KPENV and Group entities and on the basis of these mails and their description, it was of the belief that the benefit test was substantiated