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

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

36(1)(va) of the Act of ₹33,33,704/- on account of delayed\npayment of PF and ESI and the penalty was initiated for concealment\nof income. The Id. AO accordingly imposed penalty of ₹1 ,47 ,93,284/-\nbeing 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.\n8. The Id. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings affirmed the order

A.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHASKAR TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2004-05

u/s. 43B r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings for not considering the amount of ITA No.1992/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 ACIT CC-1(1) Kol. Vs. M/s Bhaskar Tea & Inds. Ltd. Page 2 ₹80,56,794/- in its computation of income. The assessee contested the penalty proceedings by pleading that by inadvertently the said

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40 a)(ia1 as they' existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

PRIYO GOPAL BISHOYI GRANDSON,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Va lue of the value of Cas ti ng physi ca l Pr ofi t st ock st ock a s per mi sta ke value of ele men t inven t ory MR P /se lli ng ma de i n st ock a s on s u ch arrived at price tota llin