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)

271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty of Rs 4,56,362 when the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to furnish return of total income under section

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act ITA No.736/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT Cir-29, Kol. Vs. P.K. Mohta (HUF) Page 9 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars

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

254 ITR (158) held that, non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in the assessment order did not render the assessment erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of revenue and the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction of 263 of the I.T. Act for such non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271(1

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1)(c) is to penalize the assessee for concealing particulars of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It is of no consequence whether the income returned was a profit or loss. Therefore, even if there is loss return and no tax was leviable even after disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was still leviable. For this

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about Act, dt. 16/03/2020, it came to know about the ex-parte orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders. He also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case orders

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

section 271 (1)( c) should be discernible either from the assessment order or the penalty notice which would constitute the basis of initiating the penalty proceedings. The explanation given by the assessee during the assessment proceeding was held to be not bona fide and acceptable has been mentioned clearly in the assessment order itself. In the penalty proceedings

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c ) of the Act that the aforesaid issues had reached the corridors of several tribunals and courts and that itself goes to prove that the issues are highly debatable and involves substantial question of law. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on a legal issue. I.T.A. No. 1864/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year