DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

36(1)(iii) for interest paid on loan taken for purchase of shares. The AO disallowed the interest u/s 14A and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the claim was unsustainable. The penalty was deleted by the appellate authorities. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 was not deliberate/mala fide nor intentional nor does Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 the omission give rise to any undue benefit to the assessee, it is purely a legal ground and does not require any additional evidence, the additional ground of appeal is also admitted for adjudication as it goes to the root of the matter and is necessary

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 was not deliberate/mala fide nor intentional nor does Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 the omission give rise to any undue benefit to the assessee, it is purely a legal ground and does not require any additional evidence, the additional ground of appeal is also admitted for adjudication as it goes to the root of the matter and is necessary

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)© of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36

DCIT,CENT CIR-I ,KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Since identical issue is involved in all the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience

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 :-

271 of the Act, dt. 27/11/2015. 7/11/2015. 2.1.2. The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s 274/271 of the Act, received along with the order passed u/s 144C

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)(c). The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the latter part of the arguments of the assessee and accepting the same, he cancelled the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for both the years under consideration for the following identical reasons given in his impugned orders:- “I have considered findings of the Ad in the penalty order

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

penalty levied by Assessing Officer as per Explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Before coming to the specific issue let us understand the history of the case. In the present case the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction, real estate and other related contractual jobs. There was a search

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

36,00,000/- vide his letter dated 26.09.2017. The ld. AO although accepted the return filed by the assessee and assessed the total income at Rs. 83,02,410/- initiated a penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the Act and subsequently passed an order dated 27.06.2018 u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order dated 27.06.2018, the assessee

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA TRADE & COMMERCE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36, the Hon'ble ITAT Cuttak Bench has held that levy of penalty U/S 271AAA was not justified on the ground that the assessee failed to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income admitted u/s 132(4) was derived. In the case of DCIT vs Sulochanadevi A Agarwal ITA No I.T.A. No. 1083/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as illegal and invalid since none of the conditions precedent for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act existed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty with respect to disallowance

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 (Chand) Where held that an addition made on the basis of presumption under deeming provisions u/s 69, 69(A), 69(8), 69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty u/s 271 (c) is not justified in every such case. (I) Your appellant further submits that the Assessing Officer has added

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36 (Chand) Where held that an addition made on the basis of presumption under deeming provisions u/s 69, 69(A), 69(8), 69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty u/s 271 (c) is not justified in every such case. (I) Your appellant further submits that the Assessing Officer has added