DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

penalty proceedings to explain the reasons as to why he had not admitted the entire incomes in each of the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2005-06. With regard to the immunity Explanation 5 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that

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 to Section 271

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,97,865/-. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the assessee claimed that it had made voluntary disclosure of additional income of Rs. 5,96,176/- which were ultimately added in the search assessment and also stated that the same cannot be construed as a disclosure

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In that order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO went on to impose Rs.96,020/- as penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

u/s 153A of the Act. It is not a case where the assessee had made false disclosures in the return of income or failed to cooperate during the assessment proceedings. Further, it is also not a case where no explanations were furnished or the explanation furnished were found to be false. It would be pertinent to note that

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

u/s 153A of the Act. It is not a case where the assessee had made false disclosures in the return of income or failed to cooperate during the assessment proceedings. Further, it is also not a case where no explanations were furnished or the explanation furnished were found to be false. It would be pertinent to note that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 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)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

40,92,148/- In respect of the aforesaid addition of Rs.42,06,434.00 which was offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed penalty holding that the assessee has violated the provision of law enumerated in Section

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

40[(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of the 41[***] an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 42[or section 246A] or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. The AO computed the disallowance only on the basis of audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD filed along with return of income. The assessee has not contested this addition of disallowance of expenses of Rs.3,01,590/- and assessment to the same

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 to Section 271

DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S/ ARYAN MINNING & TRADING CORPORATION LTD, KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey & Sh. A.L.Sainidcit, M/S. Aryan Mining & Central Circle-2(2), Aayakar V Trading Corporation Ltd., P-1, Hide Lane, 8Th Floor, Bhawan, Poorva, 110 S Shantipally, Kolkata-700073. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aadca7247B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tulsyan, Fca & Ms. Sikha Agarwal, Aca 27.12.2018 Date Of Hearing 01.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

40 MM) SUB GRADE SCREEN 170884.410 248187824 FINE Total IRON 1536011.823 6116299719 LUMP-MN 4853.130 29462041 GRAND TOTAL 1540864.953 6145761760.085 11. It was also brought to our notice that since the fines below Fe content 55% was treated as waste, it used to be accumulated and thus got piled up for years in the mining areas of the assessee company

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Kolkata-700017 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb 9831 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Kol/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons Vs. Acit, Cc-Iv, Kolkata (Huf) Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra 39, Shakespeare Sarai, Sarani, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaihm9669P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

271 AAA, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

40,695/- 4. The above penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for all the five years under consideration were challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelled

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). . 2. The AO noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in column 18 of Form 3CD of TAR that the opening WDV (written down value) of intangible asset as Rs. 32,12,50,000/- and the assessee had claimed

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(1)(c) of\nthe