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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee had suppressed income from the suppressed sale

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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee had suppressed income from the suppressed sale

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

section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same.” 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee had suppressed income from the suppressed sale

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)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to 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\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe