ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

199/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 22.03.2016 before imposing penalty does not contain

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

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. 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

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

NEGUN UNION CO- OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) for either or both of the offences. Penalty is to be imposed on the basis of the tax sought to be evaded as a result of either or both of the defaults. But proceedings for penalty initiated for one type of offence cannot be sustained or justified on the basis of the other. The word `conceal

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

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

M/S THER STRUCTURAL WATERPROOFING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-10(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.112/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chryso India Private Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Limited (Formerly Known As ‘The Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited’) Plot No.D-30/7, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee M.I.D.C, Turbhe, Navi Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Mumbai-400 705 (Maharashtra) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabct 0878 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant desires leave to add, to alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 3. The brief

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

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

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

CARGO PARTNER LOGISTICS INDIA,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Appellant 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.” Page 4 of 23 I.T.A. No.: 658/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Partner Logistics India Private Limited. 6. From perusal of the above

SSL EXPORTS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 of the IT Act,1961 is being issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority held as follows: “I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the relevant assessment records. The survey operation were conducted

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