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]

41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case of assessee-company for assessment year in question. Further the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents

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]

41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case of assessee-company for assessment year in question. Further the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GALLON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

4), Kolkata u/s.271(1)(c) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 20.09.2016. 2. Ground raised by the revenue is reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in cancelling the penalty of Rs.56

SANDIP JHUNJHUNWALA,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(2)AAA of the Act, the same are extracted\nbelow:-\n\"271AAA. (1)\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,\n(i)\nin the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4)\nof section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which\nsuch income has been derived

M/S. JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the primary contention of the assessee is that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

41, Manohar Dass Street, Burra Bazar - 700007 [PAN: AACFJ4832H] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Shanti Palli, 110, Eastern Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Ruby, Kasba - 700107 ......................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sunil Surana, AR Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of pronouncing

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under in the Statement of Facts filed with the appeal memo: The appellant has been in the business of carrying out High Technology Construction Activities. In pursuance of agreements entered into with the Government

ARUN KUMAR BOSE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.465/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Arun Kumar Bose................................................................................…..…Appellant 9, Rajani Kant Sarani, Hakimpara, Siliguri. [Pan: Ahvpb8055A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri...…..…...........................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Adv. & S. Mandal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 9Th, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 58 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Appellant Is A Senior Citizen & Was Effected By Covid & Therefore, Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars." The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the liability of the assessee in respect of aforesaid five creditors has ceased to exist. He, therefore, made the impugned addition in respect of the aforesaid liability shown by the assessee as income of the assessee at Rs.85,42,010/-. 5. Being

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in enhancing book profits under section 115JB of the Act by Rs. 3,15,04,684/- computed as per section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules without appreciating that section 14A/Rule 8D(2)(iii) which

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in enhancing book profits under section 115JB of the Act by Rs. 3,15,04,684/- computed as per section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules without appreciating that section 14A/Rule 8D(2)(iii) which

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has not been pressed by the appellant. This ground is therefore dismissed. Ground 5 is general in nature and needs no adjudication and does not need further adjudication. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed by the additions made on account of share capital and share premium

BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

41,07,639/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued. In response to the notice, Finance Officer of the Trust appeared and submitted his explanation to the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred