DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VIVADA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.1391/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Vivada Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [Pan : Aaacv 8688 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit For The Appellant For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018. Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows :- The assessee is an amalgamated company. The assessee had shown sale consideration of land of Rs.45,00,000/- in its original ITR as well as the revised ITR. As per the copy of deed of conveyance furnished by the assessee wherein

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is cancelled

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 216/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Radheshyam Agarwal...............................……………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Addpa 1746 M] Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: None Shri S. Halder, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Under the circumstances, we dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative. The assessee had sold property and derived income from capital gain

ACIT, CIR-1, , DURGAPUR vs. M/S THE DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD., DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar)

section 50C of the Act in the case of both the assessees.” 4.3. The issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 5. In Ground

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 143(3)/147) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2006-07. Shri P.K. Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri R.P. Agarwal, Ld. Senior Advocate and Shri Nira Seth, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. ITA No.169/Kol/2014

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