DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

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

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

Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal; - the assessee had made voluntary disclosure of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the Asst Year 2005-06 during the course of search assessment proceedings after filing the return u/s

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(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

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(l)(c) of the Act by the learned Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 Assessing Officer even when the addition was made on estimation basis.” 11. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in para 4 and are not repeated here. The Ld. AO gave effect to the appeal order and also issued a notice under section 271

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal; - the assessee had made voluntary disclosure of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the Asst Year 2005-06 during the course of search assessment proceedings after filing the return u/s

SRI NARENDRA N. THACKER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.XXIV, KOLKATA

ITA Nos.1786-

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

25,12,525/- for the assessment years 2002-03 , 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively on the ground that the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) protects the assessee from penalty on admitted undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act without appreciating that the assessee has made the disclosure in the Assessment Years

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal notices and are are illegal notices and are void-ab-initio. In the case-law relied upon by the ld. law relied upon by the ld. Counsel, these notices u/s 156 and 274 of the Act, might have been held to be valid Counsel, these notices u/s

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

25,160/-. Income was declared under the heads ‘salary’, ‘house property’ and ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer records at para 4 & 5 of his order as follows:- “4. ............They produced relevant evidences in support of the return of income which were seen and placed on record. 5. It is seen from the computation of total income filed along with

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

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

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

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

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 132(4). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deserves he annulled so far as the applicability of the provisions of section 271BBA in 153C assessment is concerned. 12. As regards which Clause (a), (b) or ( c) of section 271 AAB will apply and the percentage of penalty, these arc facts borne out by the records and 1 rely

GANAPATI INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(c) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

JEKAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviganpati Industrial Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aaacg9441Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs Dcit, Jekay International Pvt.Ltd., 2, Hare Street, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(2), Nicco House, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata. Pan-Aabcj6307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri.M.Satnaliwala, Fca Respondent By Shri.Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

271(1)(c) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

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

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

25-05- 2013]. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined

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

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

25-05- 2013]. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined

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

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

25-05- 2013]. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

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

25-05- 2013]. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined

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

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

25-05- 2013]. The aforesaid judgment, Mr. Khaitan submitted, has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1), which provides as follows: ‘(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return’ • The aforesaid clause, we are inclined