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

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

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

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

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

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with explanations there under, are initiated separately, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.” 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before ld. CIT(A) submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits