AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) lacks application of mind, is unsustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. 17. Having heard the rival submissions and the arguments, it is essential to understand the legal position on the facts of the case. In the case of National Textiles

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In that order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

JYOTI RANJAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-17, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy V/S. Pr. Cit-17, Bd-2, Sectdor-1, Salt Uttarapan Building, Ds4, 2Nd Floor, Lake Ciity,Kolkata-64 [Pan No.Adlpr 2179 P] Ultadanga, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri T.K. Chakrborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri . Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-17-Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2006-07. Shri T.K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Inter-Related & Therefore Being Taken Up Together. Solitary Inter-Connected Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Holding The Assessment Order As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. Briefly Stated Facts As Culled Out From The Order Of Authorities Below Are That Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual & Engaged In The

271(l)(c) is initiated, there is no question of not initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on that addition again made in subsequent revised order, specially when that addition is confirmed in appellate proceeding. Therefore, non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) on same addition in the revised order is nothing but an error committed

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246 ITR 216 where held that mere admission does not justify Penalty even in the light of the Explanation to section 271 (l)( c) where the High Court endorsed the decision of the Tribunal, which had followed the decision in the case of similar surrender of cash credits on the condition that no penalty will be levied. Mere agreement

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246 ITR 216 where held that mere admission does not justify Penalty even in the light of the Explanation to section 271 (l)( c) where the High Court endorsed the decision of the Tribunal, which had followed the decision in the case of similar surrender of cash credits on the condition that no penalty will be levied. Mere agreement

M/S. SKYLARK FISCAL SEVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

246/- made to its total income under section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments

M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

section 271F and 273B of the Act conjointly no penalty is invited in the present case. Thereby, in such peculiar circumstances, we cancel the penalty of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT-A. The ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed. Thus, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 335/Kol/2016

M/S HALLMARK CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

246/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).. 2. This appeal of assessee is time barred by 54 days and condonation petition has been filed. After considering the condonation petition and no objection from Ld. DR, we condone the delay of filing the appeal and the appeal

ITO, WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMBEY RETAILERS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ward-13(1), 9Th Ltd. 29B, Rabidra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-73 Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar [Pan No.Aahca 8700 F] Bhawan (Poorva), Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.07.2017, Passed In Case No.472/Cit(A)-5/W-15(1)/15-16, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Deleting Imposing Penalty Of ₹50,21,837/- Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Have Heard Learned Departmental Representative Arguing In Favour The Above Impugned Penalty. Case File Perused. It Emerges First Of All That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Issue Reads As Under:- “1. By Way Of Additional Ground The Objection Raised Is That The Ao Failed To Strike Off The Irrelevant Portion In The Notice Initiating Penalty U/S 271(1)(C)/ Section 274. Relying On The Decision Of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Others [2013] 359 Itr

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

JAGDAMBA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

246/-. Since, the rectification petition filed by the assessee was disposed of by the AO in the order u/s 271(1)(c) itself, therefore, the assessee has filed two separate appeals against the one order. One appeal has been filed against the rejection of petition u/s 154 of the Act and another against the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271

DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

246,000/-. 2. Ground No. 2 - Treatment of provision for bad and doubtful debts for determining operating margin The Ld CIT(A) erred in law and facts in holding that provision for doubtful debt related to HSG business taken over during the year was normal business expenses, hence should not be ignored while computing the operating margin of the appellant