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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

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 u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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 u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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 u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise 2. If the assessee disclosed higher income u/s 148 read with Section

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for concealed particulars of income and had also AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. clearly specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for concealed particulars of income and had also AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. clearly specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for concealed particulars of income and had also AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15 Eversight Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. clearly specified the particular condition for which penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceeding. Therefore, it is apparent that till 13.04.2022, no penalty order had been passed by the Ld. A.O. and that the penalty order dated 31.03.2022 is antedated to comply with the provisions of section

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing in respect of the penalty proceeding. Therefore, it is apparent that till 13.04.2022, no penalty order had been passed by the Ld. A.O. and that the penalty order dated 31.03.2022 is antedated to comply with the provisions of section

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)c. While it is trite law that the said section creates a presumption against the appellant and there is no necessity for proving mens Rea for the imposition of penalty, there is also a second limb of this section. This relates to the actual quantum of penalty that is to be imposed - whether 100% or more, going