JYOTI SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 of the IT Act 1961 by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (NFAC) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. DCIT imposing penalty u/s 271

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty of Rs.94,17,382/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2014, reporting total income of Rs. Nil, after set off of brought forward loss of 2 Height Insurance Services

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 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 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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

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

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

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

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

44) ALR 577, (d) the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach, A distinction must be made between a case where the delay, is inordinate and a case where the delay

NANDLAL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

44(4), Kolkata, whereas the assessment was framed by ITO Ward 3(3), Kolkata vide order dated 10.03.2015. Therefore, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the ld. AO framing the assessment and therefore, the assessment was framed without proper jurisdiction. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 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 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, change and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before hearing of the appeal and claim further relief or reliefs which is necessary for the ends of justice.” 3. Though the assessee has raised various grounds

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” III. ITA No. 611/KOL/2015; ; A.Y. 2010-11: (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” III. ITA No. 611/KOL/2015; ; A.Y. 2010-11: (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” III. ITA No. 611/KOL/2015; ; A.Y. 2010-11: (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” III. ITA No. 611/KOL/2015; ; A.Y. 2010-11: (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

44,00,000/- by issue of equity shares. The PCIT also noticed that during the reassessment proceedings, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the 9 out of 20 subscribers and completed the assessment vide order dated 30.04.2012. According to the PCIT, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were not served through postal services