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

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

220/- 2007-08 1,04,940/- 3,93,00,000/- NIL 3,94,04,940/- 2008-09 4,00,00,000/- N.A. 51,50,000/- 4,51,50,000/- 4. Additional incomes disclosed for the Asst.Year 2002-03 to 2006-07 are not based on any seized documents or assets found in the course of search & seizure operation. The income

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

220/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A / 143(3) of the Act on 11.5.2011 by treating the share trading loss as speculation loss in terms of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act and after making minor disallowances and determining total income of Rs. 1,73,55,290/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act was initiated by the Learned

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

220/-. 3. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since the submission made by the assessee in support of his case on the issue of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not found acceptable

SRI SURESH KARMAKAR,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

220/- thereby admitting undisclosed investment of Rs.9,26,000/-. The AO made further addition of Rs.16,764/- on account of undisclosed investment which was not contested in appeal. In I.T.A. No. 2490/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 8 this factual background, I am of the considered view that Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is clearly

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable, how much more penalty becomes true and potent in a case where the concealment has been detected on account of proactive search action initiated by the department. In the case of the assessee, the assessee has not recorded details of his income and the same was worked out only during search and that

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable, how much more penalty becomes true and potent in a case where the concealment has been detected on account of proactive search action initiated by the department. In the case of the assessee, the assessee has not recorded details of his income and the same was worked out only during search and that

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 to 4 are allowed.” ITA No.1487/Kol/2012 M/s. Concast Steel & Power Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The ld. DR before us submitted that the seized documents

D.C.I.T CIR - 53,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S M.K ENTERPRISE., KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance of the procedure as contemplated u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. According to AO, Shri Sanjib Sarkar, stated to be one of the partners appeared on 10-12-2010 for the first time and produced before him the auditor’s report , P & L account

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), dated 30.09.2014 for your necessary action In this regard this is also to inform you that the following demands along with interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act are still outstanding. SI Asst. Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

271 (1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 has been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. " 6.2. The Assessee has made detailed submission. Some of which is reproduced as below: "3.2 It is humbly submitted that the appellant company maintains a running account in respect of Switz Foods wherein the expenses incurred on regular basis along with business advances

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1099-00/Kol/2013 A.Ys 03-04 & 04-05 Negun Union co-op. Agri Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO Wd-2(2) BWN Page 2 Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 2. Since common grounds are involved

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

u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

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

u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

TRIYOGI NARAYAN SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 28(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S Vishwanethra Ravi, And

u/s. 234B and 220(2) of the Act and imposed penalties under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and the same

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

220(e) will not apply. Further it also expressed that if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not apply. In the present case, the assessee is holding 10,99,300 shares in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd as per register produced

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately. [Add: Rs. 46,75,71,359/-] ’ Hence, the learned PCIT failed to appreciate the facts of the case and erred in his understanding that the said provision for NPA relates to computation of income under normal provisions and that the assessee is not allowed

M/S AI CHAMPADANY INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/-. Under scrutiny, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the said notices, ld. A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed different details in support of return. The assessee produced documentary evidences to establish that the payments were made to parties claiming exemption for non deduction of tax at source except