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

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

276C and penalty under section 271(1)( c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate

ARTDECO COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 174 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2015-16

u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable if appellant fails to disclose truly and correctly all the particular of its income in its valid filed return. 4.4.1 In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme

DDIT(IT) - 2(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. RAJ NARAYAN SINHA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 31st March 2010. The penalty was levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income after relying in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [166 taxman 65 (SC) where it was held that ITA No.867/Kol/2013

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

271(1)© and also proposed proceedings under section 276C and 277A read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. g) As per details filed assessee paid rent of Rs.15,96,00/- which is not verifiable from the TDES document provided during assessment proceedings. Therefore, AO has to examine this issue also. h) The assessee company has claimed professional

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

271(1)© and also proposed proceedings under section 276C and 277A read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. g) As per details filed assessee paid rent of Rs.15,96,00/- which is not verifiable from the TDES document provided during assessment proceedings. Therefore, AO has to examine this issue also. h) The assessee company has claimed professional