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]

271(1)(c) by which imposing penalty amounting to Rs. 2,33,74,126/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), by which ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “The appellant has argued that the impugned penalty order

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]

271(1)(c) by which imposing penalty amounting to Rs. 2,33,74,126/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), by which ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “The appellant has argued that the impugned penalty order

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]

271(1)(c) by which imposing penalty amounting to Rs. 2,33,74,126/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), by which ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “The appellant has argued that the impugned penalty order

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

3). Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. However, the order of the AO dropping the penalty was set aside by the Pr. CIT-8, Kolkata vide his revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying

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

3). Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. However, the order of the AO dropping the penalty was set aside by the Pr. CIT-8, Kolkata vide his revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying

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

3). Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. However, the order of the AO dropping the penalty was set aside by the Pr. CIT-8, Kolkata vide his revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying

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

3). Subsequently, the penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. However, the order of the AO dropping the penalty was set aside by the Pr. CIT-8, Kolkata vide his revision order u/s. 263 dated 14.02.2019 and the penalty proceedings were taken up afresh by the AO which were completed ex parte vide the impugned penalty order dated 27.08.2019 levying

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

3)/263 read with section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding u/s 271

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) read with section 147 of the Act. Hence, in view of the Hon'ble High Court’s decision in case of M/s S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra), no penalty was imposable u/s 271

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

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

3,68,938/- vide order dated 01.02.2022.\n4. The Id. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Id. AO by upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by treating

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

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. 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. 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. 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