RANJIT ROY,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 23, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2254/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

271 D of the Act is inapplicable. It was also pleaded by the ld. Counsel before us that the assessee was in dearth of funds on the dates when such amounts were received. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty mainly on the reason that “……………. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate the urgency

SRI PLABAN KUMAR BASU,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O. WARD - 1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

269 55 of the IT Act otherwise than through account payee cheque or account payee draft. Accordingly penalty proceedings under section 271D were initiated. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant vide its submission dated 18.12.2013 stated that the amounts represented cash gifts received from his wife and mother. However, vide his submission dated 15.01.2014 the appellant has accepted that

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

269 ITR 429 (Del). In C.I.T. v. Makhani & Tyagi (P) Ltd. this Court has not given its imprimatur to the inaction of the AO in doing nothing further after the issuance of summons under Section 131 of the Income-Tax Act. It did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

269 ITR 429 (Del). In C.I.T. v. Makhani & Tyagi (P) Ltd. this Court has not given its imprimatur to the inaction of the AO in doing nothing further after the issuance of summons under Section 131 of the Income-Tax Act. It did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift

SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

penalty of Rs. 5,79,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 26.09.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against said order was 25.10.2022. 3) However due to multiple health problem of self as well as of an elderly family member, it could join duties from 15.01.2023. 4) Thereafter, I consulted my CA, who prepared, drafted

SANKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

penalty of Rs. 5,79,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 26.09.2022. 2) The due date to file the appeal against said order was 25.10.2022. 3) However due to multiple health problem of self as well as of an elderly family member, it could join duties from 15.01.2023. 4) Thereafter, I consulted my CA, who prepared, drafted

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10 Jcit(Osd), Circle-2(2), V/S. M/S West Bengal Tourism Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Development Corporation Chowringhee Sqr. Ltd., 12, Hemanta Bhawan, 4Th Floor, B.B.D. Kolkta-69 Bag East, Kolkata- 001 [Pan No.Aaacw 3093 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G.R. Saha, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 22.01.201, Passed In Appeal No.406/Cit(A)-10/Cir.2/2014-15/Kol, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short As ‘The Act’.

269 Rs,18,59,533 Rs.44,04,736 publicity syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Milan Marine Rs.1,21,223 Nil Rs.1,21,223 Services Total Rs.45,25,959 In view of the above, it is concluded that the assessee company claimed bogus expenditure as a result of which excess liability towards sundry creditors were shown to the tune of Rs.45

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately., Hence, income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act as follows: Income assessee u/s 143(3) Rs.2,95,59,195/- Less: Deduction u/s 80HHC Rs. 85,84,324/- Total Income Rs.2,09,74,871/- Rounded off Rs.2,09,74,870/-“ The deduction u/s 80HHC which was originally allowed

K.B. PROCESSING,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(6), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section (1) of Sec. 142 of the Act on 08.12.2017 in the name\nof the firm M/s K. B. Processing, which has been dissolved. Subsequently,\nthe A.O., Ward – 50(6), Kolkata had passed an Order u/s 144 of the Act on\n03.12.2019 in respect of the dissolved firm and determined the total income\nof the erstwhile firm at Rs.39

BINOD KUMAR BURNWAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [Pan : Aizpb 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent

271/- deposit in party's bank account and the Provision is covered by Rule 6DD, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 7. For that the interest u/s 234B charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 8. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately for the amounts of Rs.48,50,000/- and Rs.1,80,100/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the order passed by the AO by observing the following:- “7.8 In the case of appellant

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

PRIYO GOPAL BISHOYI GRANDSON,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars /concealment of income. [Addition: Rs.44,06,108/-]”. 5. The appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the findings of both the authorities contended that basically revenue has compared

DDIT(IT)-1(1)KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S JOY PARTNERSHIP, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 149/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ddit(It)-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Joy Partnership [Pan: Aadfj 6427 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is, therefore, initiated separately for disallowance of Rs.l,89,41,265/- . 4.3. The amount of exchange loss of Rs. 51,69,208/- is inclusive of Rs. 13,98,364/- in respect of which the assessee was able to identify the employees. The balance of Rs. 37,70,844/-(5169208-1398364) is purely an estimated

M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 25.10.2017. The facts of the case are brought out in the Dispute Resolution Panel’s (‘DRP’) order in Page no.1 & 2 which is extracted below for ready reference: “Earnest Towers Private Limited is engaged in the business of real estate development and it is promoted