ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

234B, initiation\nof penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) and general grounds. As these grounds are\nconsequential, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous.\n5.5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.\n6.\nAfter hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available\non record, we find that the assessee company has disposed its\ninvestments amounting

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

u/s 271B of the Act. 14. That Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in charging interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act which is not chargeable and/or excessively charged. I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section 271

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]

234B of the Act. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction

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]

234B of the Act. 19. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction

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 in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant

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 in view and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7032/- towards commission notionally which was not incurred by the appellant

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 u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act which is consequential in nature. As the main ground of appeal does not hold its ground the consequential ground of appeal is also dismissed. Ground No. 6: In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the leavy of interest u/s 234B, 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature

ITO WD 3(1), KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

234B, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) and general grounds. As these grounds are consequential, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 5.5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. ” 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee company has disposed its investments amounting

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

234B, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) and general grounds. As these grounds are consequential, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. 5.5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. ” 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee company has disposed its investments amounting

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

M/S. WEALTH PLANNERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

234B is a mandatory aspect. Similarly challenge to initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c), it is a pre-mature in nature. Assessee has an independent remedy. Show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 274 of the Income Tax Act would be issued to it. In case penalty is imposed, then separate 2 A.Y. 2012-2013 Wealth

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B which is otherwise not chargeable and / or excessive and/or unreasonable. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” I.T.A. No.: 157/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Siliguri Heights Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company

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

234B of the Act. 12. That the Impugned Order erred in not deleting interest levied under section 234D of the Act 13. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating 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

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

234B and Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively through calculation Sheet and demand notice without passing a specific order in this regard. 6. That the Ld. AO was wrong in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 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 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

234B at Rs.15,40,638/- and interest U/s 234D at Rs.1,32,706/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such interests were at all chargeable. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves

SATYAJIT DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.301/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyajit Das……………………...................................................……Appellant Moubesia, Dhulasimla, Uluberia, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Agvpd4627P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 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 20.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ 1. For That Both The Impugned Order Of Assessment & The Appellate Order Dated 28.12.2017 & 20.11.2019 Respectively Are Bad In Law & Based On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts. 2. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining The Assessment, As The Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Invoking

Section 234B & 234C of the Act. 23. FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271