ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(10© of the act and prosecution proceedings u/s. 276C, 277A r.w.s. 278B of the Act. g) Directed the AO to verify the rent paid by assessee amounting to Rs.15.96 lakhs from the TDS documents provided in the assessment proceedings; h) Directed the AO to verify the professional charges and conveyance charges amounting to Rs.19

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(10© of the act and prosecution proceedings u/s. 276C, 277A r.w.s. 278B of the Act. g) Directed the AO to verify the rent paid by assessee amounting to Rs.15.96 lakhs from the TDS documents provided in the assessment proceedings; h) Directed the AO to verify the professional charges and conveyance charges amounting to Rs.19

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied penalty. The Tribunal reduced the penalty. On further appeal to the High Court: 3 Ms. Leela Mondal AY 2008-09 'Held, that the assessee had shown "Long Term Capital Gain" and claimed exemption but transaction has been disclosed in the return. There was no concealment of income

M/S RISHI F. L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 69C and 40A(3) of the I.T Act. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances the ld. CIT(Appeal) is justified by confirming the penalty U/s. 271

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

40A(3) of the Act. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 33,04,612/- (1623,931 + 16,80,681) and a impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act of Rs. 10,21,124/-. 4. Aggrieved

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

271 (1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 has been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. " 6.2. The Assessee has made detailed submission. Some of which is reproduced as below: "3.2 It is humbly submitted that the appellant company maintains a running account in respect of Switz Foods wherein the expenses incurred on regular basis along with business advances

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

2. The plea of the assessee that the claim for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was a bonafide mistake made by the assessee has to be accepted. There is no material on record to show that the claim was not made under bonafide mistake. We find that the case laws as relied on by the ld.DR were

BINOD KUMAR BURNWAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [Pan : Aizpb 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent

271/- deposit in party's bank account and the Provision is covered by Rule 6DD, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 7. For that the interest u/s 234B charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 8. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KOLKATA PORT TRUST , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against