M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

197 Taxman 263/ 9 taxmann.com 168, in the following terms : "9. Thus if the transaction is one of leasing/hiring/letting simpliciter under which the possession of the goods, i.e., effective and general control of the goods is to be given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of selecting the manner, time and nature

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

197, the assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 of the Act before the DIT( IntI. Taxn), Kolkata on 25.04.2005. Ld. DIT( IntI. Taxn), Kolkata, after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case(s) and all applicable legal provisions, passed separate orders u/s 264 for WBPDCL and DPL on 17.6.2005. Paragraph No.8, being the last paragraph of the order

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

197, the assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 of the Act before the DIT( IntI. Taxn), Kolkata on 25.04.2005. Ld. DIT( IntI. Taxn), Kolkata, after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case(s) and all applicable legal provisions, passed separate orders u/s 264 for WBPDCL and DPL on 17.6.2005. Paragraph No.8, being the last paragraph of the order

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57,10,274/- and Rs. 2,37,10,662/- for the Assessment Years

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40 a)(ia1 as they' existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

I.T.O WD - 28(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAN VIJAY SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

197 of the Act for nil deduction of TDS. He further submitted that assessee was of the view that the provision of TDS is not applicable and no Ld. counsel guided him about the applicability of provision of TDS. The Ld. AR also submitted that rent was paid to Govt. organization and same must have been included in the total

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” During the course of hearing, the ld AR stated that he is not pressing the Grounds 4.3 to 4.11 before us, which was also mentioned in his written submissions filed before us. Accordingly, those grounds (i.e 4.3 to 4.11) are dismissed as not pressed. 5.4. The assessee had used TNMM

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, II-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

197, the assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 of the Act before the DIT (International Taxation), Kolkata on 25.04.2005. The Ld. DIT (International Taxation), Kolkata after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case(s) and all applicable legal provisions passed separate orders u/s 264 for WBPDCL and DPL on 17.06.2005. Paragraph No. 8, which is the last paragraph

DCIT, (IT), CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

197, the assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 of the Act before the DIT (International Taxation), Kolkata on 25.04.2005. The Ld. DIT (International Taxation), Kolkata after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case(s) and all applicable legal provisions passed separate orders u/s 264 for WBPDCL and DPL on 17.06.2005. Paragraph No. 8, which is the last paragraph

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 @ 1

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately for the amounts of Rs.48,50,000/- and Rs.1,80,100/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the order passed by the AO by observing the following:- “7.8 In the case of appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SHRI SHYAM CEMENT WORKS PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs. Shri Shyam Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3, Kolkata. (Pan: Aadcs8052J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.09.2016

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the said additions made by the AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal and the learned CIT(A) by way of impugned order, allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the AO. 4. Challenging the impugned order Revenue preferred