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

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

2\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited; 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17\n3.\nThe facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2012, declaring total income at ₹20,62,50,250/- and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

45,34,600/- to the assessee’s total income under the head "Income from Other Sources and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee ITA No.: 2307/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.08.2025 by holding

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (R. Kiruthiga) DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok”. 8. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income assessable in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter he prepared a detailed computation of income available on pages no. 53 to 55 of the record

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

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

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

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

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]

2 I.T.A. No. 2114/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Udyogi Internaitonal pvt. Ltd. read with Section 144 read with 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

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

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

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