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

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

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

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent

BAIDYA NATH DEY,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 1(3), Durgapur, Baidya Nath Dey Aaykar Bhavan, Aykar Bithi, City Station More, P.O. Ukhra Centre, Durgapur, Vs. Burdwan-713363, West Bengal West Bengal-713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppd0247E Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chackrborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2025

51,630/-. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 14.12.2018 initiating the penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

51,253/- on account of income earned\nfrom future and options in shares and commodity profit earned by the\nassessee. The Id. AO imposed penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act). For the purpose of proper understanding of\nProvisions of Section 271

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

51,973/- was constituted as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee has already offered the same for tax suo-motto as admitted during the course of survey. The AO has not discussed anything on merit as to how this constitute filing inaccurate particulars of income and simply imposed penalty for furnishing

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

51 to 73 of Paper Book)\nii The Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT in the case of Padam Chand Pungliya [2020] 113\ntaxmann.com 446 (Jaipur Trib.) had held that Disclosure of additional income in\nstatement recorded under section 132(4) itself is not sufficient to levy penalty under\nsection 271AAB until and unless income so disclosed by assessee falls in definition

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

51,973/- was constituted as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee has already offered the same for tax suo-motto as admitted during the course of survey. The AO has not discussed anything on merit as to how this constitute filing inaccurate particulars of income and simply imposed penalty for furnishing

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

M/S. WEALTH PLANNERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

271(1)(c), it is a pre-mature in nature. Assessee has an independent remedy. Show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 274 of the Income Tax Act would be issued to it. In case penalty is imposed, then separate 2 A.Y. 2012-2013 Wealth Planners Pvt. Limited appellant remedy is provided. Hence this ground of appeal

AKRAM HOSSAIN MULLICK,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

51,843/- (rounded off) is disallowed on account of excess evaporation loss and added back to the total income of the assessee for the AY 2014-14.” He further noted that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. AO also made disallowance of certain other expenses in respect

SONWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1035 to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. We would first take