BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly speaks that it can only be applied when (i) an assessee has concealed particulars of income and (ii) an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act speaks further that it is leviable

M/S. D.K. INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The said order of penalty proceeding has been placed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein also appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. The ld. Counsel

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty of Rs.94,17,382/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2014, reporting total income of Rs. Nil, after set off of brought forward loss of 2 Height Insurance Services

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 282(1) has been effected in the case of the assessee (emphasis added). We do not find any perversity on the finding of the Tribunal on this issue. This issue also, in our opinion, does not involve any substantial question of law warranting our interference.” In this light, we may also reproduce the letter written

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144B of the Act. A penalty proceeding has also been initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 8,45,315/- have been levied against the assessee. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

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

282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. 6. In view

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. 6. In view

M/S VIBHUTI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. 6. In view

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

282/-. It was also submitted that though the books of accounts were audited by the Chattered Accountant u/s.44AB of the Act but the assessee could not file barred by limitation. The assessee submitted that since the assessee is located in the State of Sikkim and was not aware of the provisions of the Act as to filing of return

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

282/-. It was also submitted that though the books of accounts were audited by the Chattered Accountant u/s.44AB of the Act but the assessee could not file barred by limitation. The assessee submitted that since the assessee is located in the State of Sikkim and was not aware of the provisions of the Act as to filing of return

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

1,84,982/- under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. As there was no compliance, the Assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee of interest paid of Rs.4,36,922/- claimed under section 24(b) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee