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

227,558.330 277,133.320 302,397.600 65% Total (FINES) 2,355,513.148 1,367,462.730 479,545.840 3,244,430,038 Grand Total 2,366,810.41 2,419,543.38 …….6,774.49 3,249,579.30 8. According to ld AR, from a perusal of the aforesaid chart clearly shows that the fines below 55% had been duly recorded and reported

GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 38(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

227/- made to the total income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record

M/S S.R.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - MALDA., MALDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

227 (Pune Trib) held that acknowledgement of debt by the assessee company by passing a journal entry in its books of accounts would not come within the ambit of the words ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ as mentioned in section 269SS of the Act. c) Decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Orange Securities

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

271(1) ( c) has been given without striking out which specific offence is proposed to be charged against the assessee) as well as against levy of sec. 271AAB of the Act vide notice dt. 31.3.2016 ( refer to page 63 of paper book) and, thereafter, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act after observing as under

SHIV KUMAR GOYAL.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 41(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

u/s 271(1)© of the Act vide his order dated 22.03.2010. ITA No.294/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 Shiv Kr. Goyal v. ITO Wd-41(1), Kol. Page 2 2. Only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal that the Ld.CIT (A) has confirmed the order of the AO by sustaining the penalty order passed by the AO under section 271

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.” Additional

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.” Additional

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately. Since these purchases are not accounted in the books of accounts or these transactions are outside the regular books of accounts were sale this purchases as well in which it will be earning gross profit. The GP rate of the assessee company that arbitrary is 13.39%. Hence, the same that

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately. Since these purchases are not accounted in the books of accounts or these transactions are outside the regular books of accounts were sale this purchases as well in which it will be earning gross profit. The GP rate of the assessee company that arbitrary is 13.39%. Hence, the same that

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately., Hence, income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act as follows: Income assessee u/s 143(3) Rs.2,95,59,195/- Less: Deduction u/s 80HHC Rs. 85,84,324/- Total Income Rs.2,09,74,871/- Rounded off Rs.2,09,74,870/-“ The deduction u/s 80HHC which was originally allowed

SMT KRISHNA OJHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-26(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act.” 4. Not being satisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal: “01. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata confirming the additions and for disallowance made by learned assessing

ITO, WARD-6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ADVENT STOCK MANAGEMENT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c ) are being initiated separately. " The facts of Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) fall in the former category and that is why this Court decided in favour of the revenue in that case. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and fall in the second category and are more

JYOTI RANJAN ROY(LIMITED GUAREDIAN -SUVAJIT ROY),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 49(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

227 of the Constitution being CO. 3199 of 2023 in Re: Suvajit Roy and the Hon'ble High Court vide the order dated September 21, 2023 directed the Learned District Judgeto expeditiously take up the hearing of the said application filed before it and dispose the same on an urgent basis. Copy of the order dated September

JYOTI RANJAN ROY REPRESENTED BY LIMITED GUARDIAN SUVAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

227 of the Constitution being CO. 3199 of 2023 in Re: Suvajit Roy and the Hon'ble High Court vide the order dated September 21, 2023 directed the Learned District Judgeto expeditiously take up the hearing of the said application filed before it and dispose the same on an urgent basis. Copy of the order dated September

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

227 of the\nConstitution being CO. 3199 of 2023 in\nRe: Suvajit Roy and the Hon'ble High Court vide the order dated\nSeptember 21, 2023 directed the Learned District Judgeto expeditiously\ntake up the hearing of the said application filed before it and dispose the\nsame on an urgent basis. Copy of the order dated September

BINOD KUMAR BURNWAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [Pan : Aizpb 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent

271/- deposit in party's bank account and the Provision is covered by Rule 6DD, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 7. For that the interest u/s 234B charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 8. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing