DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

35,00,000/- 2004-2005 Rs. 75,00,000/- 2005-2006 Rs.1,50,00,000/- 2006-2007 Rs.2,00,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.5,00,00,000/- 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee suo motu prepared a cash flow statement taking into consideration the I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case the penalty order passed by the learned Assessing Officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals)-NFAC is not tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. That on the facts and under circumstances of the case the penalty order passed by the learned Assessing Officer as confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals)-NFAC is not tenable as the assessing officer in the Original Assessment order u/s 147 dated 26 -03-2015 had initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Assessing Officer

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

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]

penalty proceedings was initiated with the arrow symbol in the notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016. 2. That the department craves leaves to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2. The brief facts

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

35 St. Thomas Street, London SE 1 9SN. PwC DA is engaged in providing management consultancy services to clients 1 9SN. PwC DA is engaged in providing management consultancy services to clients 1 9SN. PwC DA is engaged in providing management consultancy services to clients especially engaged in the development projects funded by especially engaged in the development projects funded

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

2 and 3 are partly allowed.” All this leaves both the parties aggrieved. The Revenue’s case seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action imposing impugned penalty in enterety whereas the ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 7 taxpayer’s argument in his cross-objection

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

2 and 3 are partly allowed.” All this leaves both the parties aggrieved. The Revenue’s case seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action imposing impugned penalty in enterety whereas the ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 7 taxpayer’s argument in his cross-objection

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

2 and 3 are partly allowed.” All this leaves both the parties aggrieved. The Revenue’s case seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action imposing impugned penalty in enterety whereas the ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 7 taxpayer’s argument in his cross-objection

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

2 and 3 are partly allowed.” All this leaves both the parties aggrieved. The Revenue’s case seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action imposing impugned penalty in enterety whereas the ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 7 taxpayer’s argument in his cross-objection

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

2 and 3 are partly allowed.” All this leaves both the parties aggrieved. The Revenue’s case seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action imposing impugned penalty in enterety whereas the ITA No.232, 234,1485, 1535,1541, & 2293/Kol/2017 & C.O No.37, 27,84, 88, 108/K/2017 & 107/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 & 14-15 Page 7 taxpayer’s argument in his cross-objection

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In that order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. In this regard, the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs CIT reported in (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal) is very well founded. It was held in that case as under:- 2. Mr. J.P. Khaitan

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs.5,35,081/-. 7. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. (i) During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

ABU MANSUR ALI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

2 Abu Mansur Ali, AY. 2008-09 proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. When passing the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO has observed the following: “After reminder dated 20.06.2011, which was served on same date the assessee submitted in reply