A.C.I.T.(TDS), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. ASSAM KERALA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c ) for concealment or not furnishing of accurate particulars of income.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee ,after referring to the website VAHAN which was also referred by the AO while passing the order, came to the conclusion that most of the vehicles which have been stated to be either

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section\n271(1)(c) is justified due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the claimed\nexpenses. The appeal is dismissed in full.”\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the assessee is a government\ncontractor for transporting of goods from the railway rack to the PDS\ncenters

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.,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. 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

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

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

69C of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) noted Axis Overseas Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 that the purchases were not bogus as the learned AO has not doubted the sales and considered the same as genuine. The learned CIT (A) observed that if the purchases are not genuine then the corresponding sales cannot be genuine

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings under the provisions of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income of ₹1,49,38,316/- was initiated separately. Further, commission of ₹2,98,766/- was also added as unexplained expenditure of the assessee u/s 69C

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also initiated. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee had arranged pre- arranged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 63,76,486/- through the entry operators who facilitates such accommodation entry on receipt of commission only. As reported by the Investigation Directorate, the entry operators charge a commission

SWAPAN CHANDRA MANDAL,PURULIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), PURULIA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue for concealment of income 3. On perusal of bank account details of OBI bearing account No. 0707010103140 it was found that there is a closing balance of cash in hand is Rs.24,00,490/- but on the perusal of ITR the above mentioned cash in hand was not shown. A show cause