DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

24,169/-, Rs. 5,96,020/-, Rs. 4,86,030/- and Rs. 25,12,525/- for the assessment years 2002-03 , 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively on the ground that the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) protects the assessee from penalty on admitted undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act without

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

24,169/-, Rs. 5,96,020/-, Rs. 4,86,030/- and Rs. 25,12,525/- for the assessment years 2002-03 , 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively on the ground that the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) protects the assessee from penalty on admitted undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act without

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

24,040 ITA Nos 1875- 1878/Kol/09-B-AM 2 Deepak Choudhury 4. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee disclosed further income of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the Asst Year 2005-06. The Learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for the Asst Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 on the ground that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

271 of the Act, dt. 27/11/2015. 7/11/2015. 2.1.2. The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s 274/271 of the Act, received along with the order passed u/s 144C

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

2 M/s. Dhansar Engg.P.Ltd 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and mainly engaged in business of transportation, civil construction and other related contractual jobs. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd and its associates

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

24,202/- 20,46,839/- 29,71,040/- 6,86,000/- 2002-03 7,31,722/- 93,27,534/- 1,09,30,784/- 27,34,037/- 2004-05 4,95,693/- 15,30,967/- 20,26,660/- 2,54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

24,202/- 20,46,839/- 29,71,040/- 6,86,000/- 2002-03 7,31,722/- 93,27,534/- 1,09,30,784/- 27,34,037/- 2004-05 4,95,693/- 15,30,967/- 20,26,660/- 2,54,720/- 2005-06 13,59,795/- 71,15,928/- 84,75,723/- 13,04,932/- 6. The order

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

24(3), Hooghly Hooghly, West Bengal-712149. (PAN: APYPS8000D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner

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

24(3), Hooghly Hooghly, West Bengal-712149. (PAN: APYPS8000D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner

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

24(3), Hooghly Hooghly, West Bengal-712149. (PAN: APYPS8000D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner

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

24(3), Hooghly Hooghly, West Bengal-712149. (PAN: APYPS8000D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

2. The assessee has made disclosure of undisclosed income during the course of search action, has paid the tax together with interest and has filed return of income. 3. The assessee substantiates the manner in which he has earned the undisclosed income. From the analysis of the above Provisions of Act, it is clear that action of imposition of penalty

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

2. The assessee has made disclosure of undisclosed income during the course of search action, has paid the tax together with interest and has filed return of income. 3. The assessee substantiates the manner in which he has earned the undisclosed income. From the analysis of the above Provisions of Act, it is clear that action of imposition of penalty

DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S/ ARYAN MINNING & TRADING CORPORATION LTD, KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey & Sh. A.L.Sainidcit, M/S. Aryan Mining & Central Circle-2(2), Aayakar V Trading Corporation Ltd., P-1, Hide Lane, 8Th Floor, Bhawan, Poorva, 110 S Shantipally, Kolkata-700073. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aadca7247B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tulsyan, Fca & Ms. Sikha Agarwal, Aca 27.12.2018 Date Of Hearing 01.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

24. We note that it has been the submission of the AO as well as the Ld. DR before us that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is mandatory and automatic and therefore in the matter of levy of penalty the AO had no discretion once the assessee admits of any undisclosed income in his statement u/s

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 in its reply and was clear that the notice was issued to levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. It is thus clear that the CIT-DR’s argument that the Revenue has already succeeded on the issue as to whether the impugned penalty is automatically flows than from the additional income declaration made during