KALIPADA SAHA,HOOHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. In the written submission filed, the assessee has raised two contentions as under: (a) Whether penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed higher income in response to the notice u/s. 148 and paid tax thereupon and ; (b) That the Commissioner has no power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. In the written submission filed, the assessee has raised two contentions as under: (a) Whether penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed higher income in response to the notice u/s. 148 and paid tax thereupon and ; (b) That the Commissioner has no power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. In the written submission filed, the assessee has raised two contentions as under: (a) Whether penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed higher income in response to the notice u/s. 148 and paid tax thereupon and ; (b) That the Commissioner has no power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO,WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. In the written submission filed, the assessee has raised two contentions as under: (a) Whether penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed higher income in response to the notice u/s. 148 and paid tax thereupon and ; (b) That the Commissioner has no power to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law by which the ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the AO did not mention the specific charges viz. “concealment of particulars of income

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 :-

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5 I.T.A. No. 1090/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Bir Singh Atwal d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

5. However, when assessee objected to penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB since no search u/s. 132 of the Act happened, the AO changed his opinion and after issuing notice for the first time on 16.09.2016 u/s. 271(1)(c), he levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which action according to the Ld. AR cannot be done

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 (l)(c) were also initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income and an order imposing penalty was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order imposing penalty. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218(which

SHRI ANIL CHANDRA PAUL,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and levy Rs.20,000/- for non-compliance of notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. Therefore, appeal on the referred grounds is dismissed”. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)( C ) for concealment of income, it has been admitted by the AO that this amount represents a sum disclosed u/s 132(4), as such Explanation 5 to section

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 ]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty, the AO has not specified as to whether the charge against the Assessee is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. 8. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to section

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 ]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty, the AO has not specified as to whether the charge against the Assessee is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. 8. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to section

DCIT, CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SATYAM ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s. 132(4). As a consequence, the year wise allocation of undisclosed income is revised as seen from paragraph 2.1 of this order. Penalty proceedings are in respect this additional amount. 3.2. In my opinion, the appellant should get the protection of second exception of Explanation 5 to section 271(1

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 1 ITA Nos. 1386 to 1388/Kol/2010-C-AM M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd, Kolkata 2. The only issue involved in all these appeals is that whether the assessee is entitled for immunity from levy of penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 on the basis of defective notices issued by the Assessing officer under Section 274 rws 271 of the Act dt. ITA No.1799/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 Reena Mitra v. ITO Wd-29(2), Kol. Page 5