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 order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271

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 order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271

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 order, in paragraph 4.d,, the AO has admitted that he did not specify the particular limb in his notice u/s 274 r/w section 271

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.05.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld. AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld. AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 275(1)(c ) of the IT Act, 1961. There would have no occasion to issue notice dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing if the penalty order had already been passed on 31.03.2022. Now it also needs to be noted that the Assessing Officer who served the impugned notice dated 13.04.2022 was different from the present A.O. who has given

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KAILASH KUMAR TIBREWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 275(1)(c ) of the IT Act, 1961. There would have no occasion to issue notice dated 13.04.2022 refixing the hearing if the penalty order had already been passed on 31.03.2022. Now it also needs to be noted that the Assessing Officer who served the impugned notice dated 13.04.2022 was different from the present A.O. who has given

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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that all these appeals are time barred by 248 days. In order to explain the delay, Department has filed an application for condonation of the delay and such application reads as under:- “Nalini Bhaskaran A.Y. 1999-2000 Condonation of Delay 1. The appellant/petitioner states that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied