SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,6,00/- 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered and appreciated the submissions made by the appellant with reference to the factual aspect of the case and ought not to have

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,6,00/- 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered and appreciated the submissions made by the appellant with reference to the factual aspect of the case and ought not to have

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,6,00/- 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered and appreciated the submissions made by the appellant with reference to the factual aspect of the case and ought not to have

SRI SASHI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.3,36,6,00/- 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered and appreciated the submissions made by the appellant with reference to the factual aspect of the case and ought not to have

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

45,700/- Bazaar Street, Kolkata. 3. Accretions from 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkaya from 2,62,76,335/- 01.01.2005 to 18.08.2006 4. Jessore Road Project of Diamond Group 12,00,000/- Various miscellaneous transactions and receipts from 1st April, 5. 26,00,000/- 2005 to 22nd August, 2006 Total 4,12,22,035/- In effect, the assessee was in possession

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

45,700/- Bazaar Street, Kolkata. 3. Accretions from 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkaya from 2,62,76,335/- 01.01.2005 to 18.08.2006 4. Jessore Road Project of Diamond Group 12,00,000/- Various miscellaneous transactions and receipts from 1st April, 5. 26,00,000/- 2005 to 22nd August, 2006 Total 4,12,22,035/- In effect, the assessee was in possession

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

45,862/-. The assessment thereafter was completed on 31.03.2015 after making certain additions/disallowances on other counts. In the assessment order the AO however initiated penalty proceedings in respect of the additional income of Rs.69,00,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act and show cause notice u/s.271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued. 4. In the penalty proceedings, vide

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

271 of the Act, dt. 27/11/2015. 7/11/2015. 2.1.2. The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s 274/271 of the Act, received along with the order passed u/s 144C

R. V. ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. 6. Considering the above discussion Ground No 1 and 2 of the appeal one dismissed. Since no change for alteration in the grounds are made during proceedings therefore, Ground No. 3 is dismissed as it need no adjudication.” 8. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable

ITO, WARD - 2, SURI, BIRBHUM vs. M/S. HOTEL TARA, BIRBHUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2010-11

45,181/- declared by him in the course of statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs.25,78,480/-. Subsequently, the order was rectified u/s 154 on 29.12.2011 and assessed the total income at Rs.38

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) is available for declaration u/s 132(4) is erroneous and arbitrary since Section 271AAA(2) grants immunity from penalty under similar situations.” 3.1 The facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and engaged in several types of business viz. real estate development, export of fruit and Jewellery business. There was a search and seizure

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

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

5\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited; 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17\nexpenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word \"particular\" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word

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)

45[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or45[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 26346[or section 264], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case of all thee assessees cases @ 10% of additional income disclosures amounting to ₹4.5 corres, ₹4.02 crores and ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201 & Cos 96-98/K/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 DCIT.CC-2(2), Kol. Vs. AKA Logistics P Ltd., Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Crop. Page 3 ₹3.55 crores

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case of all thee assessees cases @ 10% of additional income disclosures amounting to ₹4.5 corres, ₹4.02 crores and ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201 & Cos 96-98/K/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 DCIT.CC-2(2), Kol. Vs. AKA Logistics P Ltd., Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Crop. Page 3 ₹3.55 crores

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

45 lac, ₹38.50 lac and ₹35.50 lac in case of all thee assessees cases @ 10% of additional income disclosures amounting to ₹4.5 corres, ₹4.02 crores and ITA No.1604, 1607 & 1610/Kol/201 & Cos 96-98/K/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 DCIT.CC-2(2), Kol. Vs. AKA Logistics P Ltd., Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Crop. Page 3 ₹3.55 crores

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRAKASH KUMAR MOHTA (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

45,57,985/- only which was claimed as exempted u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Note: The Assessing Officer by mistake has recorded the Section 10(32) of the Act in place of 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued upon the assessee Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) dated 27.01.2011 was served

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 ]

5,86,815/- 12,74,360/- 2,38,04,206/- STATEMENT OF UTILISATION OF ADDITONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS : Asst.Year Cumulative Cash in Hand Additional income Additional Income (Cumulative) utilised on the basis of seized documents