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

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

36,51,503/- 4. The Learned CITA appreciated the contentions of the assessee and the various case laws relied upon by the assessee deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for all the three years. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us for all the three years. The grounds raised for Asst Year

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

36,500 4,43,350 6,58,510 Disclosure made u/s 132(4) 1,65,00,000 66,000 22,72,000 1,96,65,528 Income disclosed u/s 153A 1,66,72,770 66,000 22,72,000 1,96,65,528 Income assessed u/s 153A 1,66,72,770 1

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

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

iii) of section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term \"inaccurate particulars

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

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

iii) of section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon\nthe Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the\namount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of\nincome, but it may not exceed three times thereof. It was pointed out that the term\n\"inaccurate particulars

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

36,540/- 7 Sansakar Goods Pvt Hari Das Mondal 2006-07 525,000/- Ltd Arun Kr Bhoumik 2007-08 38,775/- ITA No.1869-70/Kol/2013 A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 DCIT CC-VII, Kol. Vs. Sh S.S.Dhanuka Page 4 8 Cash 14,374,155/- Total 23,241,290/- From the above, it was clear that assessee has made total undisclosed investment

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

36(1)(iii) as applicable to the year under consideration. We accordingly uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 32. As regards the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 164/MUM/2011, which is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

36(1)(iii) as applicable to the year under consideration. We accordingly uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 32. As regards the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 164/MUM/2011, which is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

36(1)(iii) as applicable to the year under consideration. We accordingly uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 32. As regards the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 164/MUM/2011, which is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated

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

iii) CITI Bank, credit card No.5546379574793004 Rs.1,75,333 [opening Bal – Closing Bal = Rs.1,79,352 – Rs.4,019] Rs.5,17,783 The assessee also paid the interest on loan as per Rs. 81,768 loan a/c No.9427464, ABN Amro Bank (RBS) Rs.5,99,551 In view of the above, the AO treated that the cash deposited

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

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

iii) CITI Bank, credit card No.5546379574793004 Rs.1,75,333 [opening Bal – Closing Bal = Rs.1,79,352 – Rs.4,019] Rs.5,17,783 The assessee also paid the interest on loan as per Rs. 81,768 loan a/c No.9427464, ABN Amro Bank (RBS) Rs.5,99,551 In view of the above, the AO treated that the cash deposited

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act which would be prematured to be adjudicated at this stage in view 17 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 of the decision rendered for various grounds stated hereinabove. Hence the said ground does not require any specific adjudication at this stage. 9. The Ground No. 8 raised

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act which would be prematured to be adjudicated at this stage in view 17 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 of the decision rendered for various grounds stated hereinabove. Hence the said ground does not require any specific adjudication at this stage. 9. The Ground No. 8 raised