DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee in the facts of the case. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the various judicial precedents mentioned herein above, we have no hesitation

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.”

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the assessee by the Assessing Officer are that the assessee is a limited company and filed its return of income declaring taxable income u/s 139 of the Act of Rs.14,69,39,472.00 only. Subsequently

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)

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 for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed43, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the 44[***] Commissioner (Appeals

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

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

42,50,000/- 1,50,000/- ---- 44,00,000/- 2005-06 --- 94,75,280/- ---- ----- 94,75,280/- 2006-07 5,

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

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

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

42,50,000/- 1,50,000/- ---- 44,00,000/- 2005-06 --- 94,75,280/- ---- ----- 94,75,280/- 2006-07 5,

M/S SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

42,560/-, during the course of scrutiny. He did mention at para 5 of his order that MAT credits is decreased due to this fact by Rs.3,83,951/-. In other words, the MAT credit claimed by the assessee of Rs.3,02,534/- is not recognised. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Later penalty u/s 271

THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

42,500/-. The Learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on the income disclosed u/s 132(4) of the Act pursuant to the search at 100% of the tax on income disclosed at Rs. 4,99,00,000/- for the Asst Year 2006-07. 3.1. Asst Year 2007-08 The facts and circumstances under which penalty

SRI BHASKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for all the four years under consideration for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 5 of his impugned order passed for A.Y. 2007-08, which are identical for the remaining three years as well :- I.T.A. Nos. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 Assessment years

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

42,11,947/- 2008-2009 Rs.7,01,40,322/- In the assessments completed under section 153A/143(3) vide orders dated 16.08.2011 for all the five years under consideration, the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of unrealized retention money was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his appellate orders dated 08.10.2012 confirmed

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 271(l)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under: “5.5. I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in treating agreed addition of Rs.1,17,17,644/- as concealed income of the appellant company. consequently, he was also not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the said amount. Further

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1)(c) is to penalize the assessee for concealing particulars of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It is of no consequence whether the income returned was a profit or loss. Therefore, even if there is loss return and no tax was leviable even after disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was still leviable. For this

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

42,470/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.08.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.35,50,620/- after making the following additions:- 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Sattar Ali (i) Disallowance of sale of Rs 5,90,600/- Maize (ii) Disallowance of sale of Rs.19

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAGHUNANDAN MODY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1439/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer..............................…………………………............................................Appellant Ward 36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. Shri Raghunandan Mody....................…………………………………………………….....Respondent Rasoi Court, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Burdwan – 700 001 [Pan: Aexpm 8474 P] Appearances By: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.M. Surana Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 08, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.03.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 11,38,202/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty of Rs. 11,38,202/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,990/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated

PINXINTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pinx International Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम Ltd., 16-S, Block A, New Income Tax, Circle-11(2), / Alipore, 2, Janen Goswami V/S. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Sarani, Kolkata-700 053 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No. Aabcp 8604 M] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Jayanata Khavra, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-09-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed In Case No.2908/Cit(A)-4/2015-16 Imposing Penalty Of ₹42,914/- Involving Proceedings 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing The Penalty In Issue Of ₹42,914/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. It Is Indicated From The Penalty Notice(S) Dated 07.12.2009 That The Assessing Officer Did Not Specify As To Whether The Assessee Is Accused Of Concealment Of Particulars Of Any Taxable Income Or Had Furnished

42,914/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is indicated from the penalty notice(s) dated 07.12.2009 that the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or had furnished ITA No.1479/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2007-08 Pinx International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

M/S. SPARSH AGRO - PRO PVT. LTD.,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

42,162,000/- in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short of ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action imposing the penalty in issue of ₹42262/- u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

42,95,697/- in respect of five additions i.e. addition of Rs.1,24,298/- being undisclosed interest on STDR, addition of Rs. 7,32,43,814/- on account of unexplained cash credit in the form of commodity profit and addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of application of money, addition

ABHIJIT GHOSH DASTIDAR,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the A

42,392/- and Rs.4,16,183/- respectively imposed u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act by the AO. 2. At the outset, the ld.AR submits that the issue raised in all the appeals are covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows. He also submits that the AO imposed penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GANGOUR TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

42,600/-. During the course of assessment 2 Gangour tie-up Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2013-14 proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made disclosure of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 132(4) of the Act. In reply the assessee has made written submission stating that "The manner of earning of the same is out of business activities