ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

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

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure operation admitted undisclosed income was mentioned

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

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

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure operation admitted undisclosed income was mentioned

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

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

penalty u/s 271(a)(c) of the Act.? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the specific charge have in a statement under sub section 4 of section 132 during the course of search and seizure operation admitted undisclosed income was mentioned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act was not in force. It is quite evident from the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 24.1.2008 / 25.1.2008 that there is a reference to waiver of penalty proceedings by the group 10 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi head in his statement. These special

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act was not in force. It is quite evident from the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 24.1.2008 / 25.1.2008 that there is a reference to waiver of penalty proceedings by the group 10 ITA No.1222-1226/Kol/2011 & ITA No.1496-1499/K/2011, AY 2003-04-2007-08 Harish Kumar Sarawgi head in his statement. These special

M/S BRIJNATH KHANDELWAL & CO,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 34,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition made to its total income on account of disallowance of bad debts. 3. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section 234 B of Rs. 4,07,238/ and Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C). 4. For that

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2016-17 and he was sent on an assignment to United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel

OUTOTEC OYJ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2, it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA – Liability of tax is not attracted – The case on hand does not fall in the second part of the ‘Fee for technical services’ clause in DTAA dealing with development and transfer of plans and designs – Both the substantial questions

OUTOTEC OYJ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2, it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in DTAA – Liability of tax is not attracted – The case on hand does not fall in the second part of the ‘Fee for technical services’ clause in DTAA dealing with development and transfer of plans and designs – Both the substantial questions

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was dispatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it the time barred. 6. Mr. Chimanka, learned counsel for the Revenue places before the Court

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was dispatched only on 7th January, 2017 and delivered to the Assessee on 9th January, 2017 it the time barred. 6. Mr. Chimanka, learned counsel for the Revenue places before the Court

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40 a)(ia1 as they' existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases