ARUN KUMAR BOSE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.465/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arun Kumar Bose................................................................................…..…Appellant 9, Rajani Kant Sarani, Hakimpara, Siliguri. [Pan: Ahvpb8055A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri...…..…...........................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Adv. & S. Mandal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 9Th, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 58 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Appellant Is A Senior Citizen & Was Effected By Covid & Therefore, Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars." The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the liability of the assessee in respect of aforesaid five creditors has ceased to exist. He, therefore, made the impugned addition in respect of the aforesaid liability shown by the assessee as income of the assessee at Rs.85,42,010/-. 5. Being

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200/- to which the Ld. AR was agreeable and the Ld. DR also did not raise any serious objection as neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) have mentioned any comparable case for application of the profit rate of 20% and 5% respectively. Hence, the grounds of appeal, particularly Ground Nos. 2 and 4 raised by the assessee

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200/- to which the Ld. AR was agreeable and the Ld. DR also did not raise any serious objection as neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) have mentioned any comparable case for application of the profit rate of 20% and 5% respectively. Hence, the grounds of appeal, particularly Ground Nos. 2 and 4 raised by the assessee

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200/- to which the Ld. AR was agreeable and the Ld. DR also did not raise any serious objection as neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) have mentioned any comparable case for application of the profit rate of 20% and 5% respectively. Hence, the grounds of appeal, particularly Ground Nos. 2 and 4 raised by the assessee

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

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. Assessment

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. Assessment

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

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)

200(2)-03 section 80-IA(4)(i) had been amended to allow deduction u/s 80-IA to a business of developing any infrastructure facility and therefore the intention of the Government was to allow deduction; (g) That Land would always belong to the government and only when person other than government undertakes the development work the said person

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal, at the time, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law.” 4. Brief facts of the case

ASCON INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the, same in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such initiation was at all called for. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in arbitrarily levying

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. DHARMENDRA SINGH, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

200/-. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the A.O. had made one addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6,51,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has given the following brief findings on the basis of which relief has been given to the assessee. “5.1.1 I have perused the assessment