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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 09. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT v. Best. Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 397 ITR 82, Delhi, where penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted on the ground that the additional income surrendered

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

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

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

45,500/- which was 2 Virendra Kumar Surana, HUF, AY 2012-13 processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken up by initiating proceedings u/s. 147 read with sec. 148 of the Act as assessee had transacted into shares of Quest Financial Services Ltd. alleged to be a penny stock on which long term

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

45,55,434/- determined by the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 22.03.2014 and assessed the income at Rs.9,65,31,058/- on account of adjustment made as per order under section 92CA(3) of the Act and various other additions. The Assessing Officer vide para

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.”

45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) casually and without identification of the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,313/- aggregating to ₹14,40,51,253/- with details of\nutilization of such funds have been provided and accordingly, the\npenalty levied is invalid and bad in law.\n3.\nThe facts in brief are that the assessee is a key personal of REI Group\nof companies. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was\nconducted

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144B of the Act. A penalty proceeding has also been initiated u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 8,45

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying out the proceedings, during the course of which assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the books

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying out the proceedings, during the course of which assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the books

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying out the proceedings, during the course of which assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the books

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying out the proceedings, during the course of which assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the books

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

45,910/-. Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 28th February, 2020, followed by issue of notices u/s 148 of the Act on 26th March, 2021, for the alleged escapement of income followed by carrying out the proceedings, during the course of which assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the books

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.

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 25.06.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee, who is a key person connected with

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

45(2), B-56, II Floor Vs Kolkata Ashok Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi - 110052 [PAN: ACYPT6306N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

45 amounting to Rs. 2,25,001/-. ii. Income from other sources u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 84,644/-. iii. Salary Received u/s 15 amounting to Rs. 34,64,292/-. iv. Unexplained Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money U/s 69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During the assessment proceedings