D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty

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

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

2\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited; 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17\n3.\nThe facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income at ₹20,62,50,250/- and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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]

u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who is the jurisdictional AO however the assessment in this case was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri . We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to ACIT and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section

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]

u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who is the jurisdictional AO however the assessment in this case was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri . We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to ACIT and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

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

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

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

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, it is state that in the case of the assessee penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for the AY 2015-16 was passed on 31.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,21,15,075/- having DIN No. ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/ 1042842838(1) and the same was served upon assessee

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the Act. Hence, in view of the Hon'ble High Court’s decision in case of M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly, direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied. Hence, ground nos.1, 2

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOL. , KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied