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

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

3,91,45,340/-. The\nassessment was completed at ₹4,24,79,134/- as under:-\nParticulars\nIncome as per ITR dated 18.02.2023\nLess: Bogus Sales\nAdd: Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act\nAdd: Addition on account of delayed payment of PF and ESI\nAmount

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

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

3,91,45,340/-. The\nassessment was completed at ₹4,24,79,134/- as under:-\nParticulars\nIncome as per ITR dated 18.02.2023\nLess: Bogus Sales\nAdd: Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act\nAdd: Addition on account of delayed payment of PF and ESI\nAmount

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]

3) of the Act was passed by assessing total income at Rs. 86,11,216/-. Penalty proceedings for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated in the assessment order. In the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) was issued as it was noticed during assessment proceedings that as per cash book

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

DIPAK KUMAR DEY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

penalty proceedings under section 271 (I)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Subsequent perusal of the assessment record revealed that during the relevant year the assessee made multiple cash payments of Rs. 20,000/- each on different dates to M/s Johar & Co. (Wine Sales) Pvt. Ltd. 3. After listing out the payments above

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. So, for sake of consistency in department stand on the issue, addition of notional interest is made @ 12% amounting to Rs 2,67,75,667/- on total advances of Rs 22,31,30,558/-. 1. It is pertinent

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

3 C-AM Sh.Ram Ch.Agarwal proceedings that the ld.AO had merely called for submission of details of purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds on 29-10-2010. The assessee while collecting the details for the same, understood a mistake committed by him in the original return of income by not offering the long term capital gains on sale

NEGUN UNION CO- OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

40A(3) of the Act for an amount of Rs.2.30 lakhs and the addition was confirmed for Rs.46,000/- but at the appellate stage Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition at Rs. 20,000/-. 2) The assessee, during the year also earned its income from the non- members which is in contravention of the provisions of Section

VIVEKANANDA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

Bench: The Cit- It Was Contended That There Was No Deliberate Omission On The Part Of Assesse In Concealing The Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Placed Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Cases Of T. Ashok Pai Vs. Cit Reported In 292 Itr 11(2007) (Sc) & Cit Vs. Reliance Petro Products P.Ltd Reported In 322 Itr (201) 158(Sc) Respectively.

section 271(1)(c). It is further seen that the factual statement made by the appellant in the income return were found correct but the disallowance has been made due to legal fictions. In respect of ESIC payment due but not paid, in case of PF due but not paid. Neither it as inaccurate particular of income

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

PANCHANAN JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD - 27(3), PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Panchanan Jana Vs. Ito, Ward-27(3), Haldia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) is also initiated separately for concealment of income. Since the addition on this score has already been made substantively in assessment u/s 143(3) dated 30.03.2015 for A.Y. 2012-13 and following the direction of ld. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata, dated 17.01.2017, the addition made in this protective assessment is protective in nature

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]

3 I.T.A. Nos. 453/Kol/2018 & CO 23/Kol/2019, ITA No.367/Kol/2018, ITA Nos. 368&369/Kol/2018 & ITA No. 452/Kol/2018 & CO 60/Kol/2018 Kolkata Port Trust., Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty taking note that due to inadvertent

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]

3 I.T.A. Nos. 453/Kol/2018 & CO 23/Kol/2019, ITA No.367/Kol/2018, ITA Nos. 368&369/Kol/2018 & ITA No. 452/Kol/2018 & CO 60/Kol/2018 Kolkata Port Trust., Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty taking note that due to inadvertent

KOLKATA PORT TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 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]

3 I.T.A. Nos. 453/Kol/2018 & CO 23/Kol/2019, ITA No.367/Kol/2018, ITA Nos. 368&369/Kol/2018 & ITA No. 452/Kol/2018 & CO 60/Kol/2018 Kolkata Port Trust., Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty taking note that due to inadvertent

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]

3 I.T.A. Nos. 453/Kol/2018 & CO 23/Kol/2019, ITA No.367/Kol/2018, ITA Nos. 368&369/Kol/2018 & ITA No. 452/Kol/2018 & CO 60/Kol/2018 Kolkata Port Trust., Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty taking note that due to inadvertent

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]

3 I.T.A. Nos. 453/Kol/2018 & CO 23/Kol/2019, ITA No.367/Kol/2018, ITA Nos. 368&369/Kol/2018 & ITA No. 452/Kol/2018 & CO 60/Kol/2018 Kolkata Port Trust., Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty taking note that due to inadvertent