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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to\ndisallowance of Rs.28,30,401/- being PF and ESI contributions paid beyond the\nstipulated period when such a disallowance does not lead to any concealment of income\nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant any penalty.\"\n10.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material\non record, we find

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

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

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

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

u/s. 10(38) of the Act in the original return of income. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the assessee has disclosed the transaction of shares completely before the Income-tax department in the return of income. We find that following case laws support the facts of the assessee:- ITA No.1700/Kol/2012- 4 C-AM Sh.Ram Ch.Agarwal

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

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

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. 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]

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

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

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

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

BHABESH MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

penalty by relying on various case laws. 6. Before us the ld. AR submits that details of short term capital loss and long term capital loss were filed during original assessment proceedings, which was accepted by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The mistake regarding short term capital loss/gain in place of long term capital loss/gain and long

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

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