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

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 14.02.2019. The right to file an appeal is a statutory right and u/s. 253(1)(a), an appeal can be filed against the order passed by a Commissioner (Appeals) u/s. 250 of the Act and under

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

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2019 and not against the order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 14.02.2019. The right to file an appeal is a statutory right and u/s. 253(1)(a), an appeal can be filed against the order passed by a Commissioner (Appeals) u/s. 250 of the Act and under

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

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

263 of the I.T. Act for such non-initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. in this regard also, referred to another decision by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Sudershan Talkies reported in 200 ITR 153(Delhi). I have considered the above case laws relied upon

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 on 30.08.2016 and raised a tax demand of Rs. 3,87,55,361/- thereon. In effect, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Ld. Pr. CIT before the date of passing of the order by the ld. AO pursuant to section

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)

263 or 264 of the Act. Hence the assessee’s case squarely falls under clause (c ) of section 275(1) of the Act supra. In this case, penalty could be imposed on or before 30.11.2011 or on or before 31.3.2012 whichever is later. The later period is 31.3.2012. Hence the last date for imposition of penalty u/s

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

263 of the Act dated 11.03.2020 (impugned order). The crux of findings are extracted as under: “3. Subsequently, the assessment order and other records were called for and examined. The assessment u/s 147 read with section 143(3) has been completed without ascertaining the facts recorded on reason for issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is further seen

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 271D & 271E of the Act respectively. He, however, accepted the taxable income at Rs. 37,84,930/-, as in the original assessment order dated 23.03.2015. Page 2 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 571/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.11.2019 whereby he indicated that

SKAN ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-12, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of oceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income by claiming of excess expenditure under this

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

263 of the Act were initiated as the assessment order was found to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and the same was set aside with certain directions by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (in short ‘the Ld. PCIT’) vide order dated 06.03.2013. Consequent to the order

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

263 of the Act were initiated as the assessment order was found to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and the same was set aside with certain directions by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (in short ‘the Ld. PCIT’) vide order dated 06.03.2013. Consequent to the order

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent

S.M.MUMTAZUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1763/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04

263 of the Act. Subsequently order of assessment u/s 143(3) 2 S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 was framed by AO on 18.08.2008 and the total income was determined at Rs.,2,10,70,840/-. 4. On further appeal by the assessee CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.12.2009 gave relief to the assessee consequent to which addition of Rs.12

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148

MRS ANASUYA RAMANA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-22(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

263/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 14 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal. In this regard, an application has been filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the said delay

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am A.C.I.T. (International Taxation), Vs. M/S Joy Partnership Mining Circle-1 (2), Kolkata Centre Room No-206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 85/1 Topsia Road, ( South) Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700046 Kolkata-7000107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj 6427 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee thus explained in detail before the Assessing Officer that there cannot be any case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act given the facts of its case and the position in law in this regard. The Assessing Officer, however, without appreciating the facts of the case

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs.5,35,081/-. 7. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. (i) During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA vs. POSITIVE DEVCON PVT. LTD., SONARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) are attracted. • Further, it is not clear whether the penalty is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. • Thus, according to him, the Ld. AO has simply levied huge penalty on the ground that no further appeal has been filed. No effort has been made to make out a case for levying penalty u/s