ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

271(1)(c) should have been imposed on acocunt of the additon of Rs.1,17,17,644/- done u/s 69C by the AO relying on unexplained transaction figures appearing on page 12 of seized set documetns marked UKS-1, in the order u/s 143(3)/153C completed on 31.12.2009. 4. That the Departmnet craves leave to add, modify or alter

M/S RISHI F. L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 69C and 40A(3) of the I.T Act. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances the ld. CIT(Appeal) is justified by confirming the penalty U/s. 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(2)AAA of the Act, the same are extracted\nbelow:-\n\"271AAA. (1)\n(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,\n(i)\nin the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4)\nof section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which\nsuch income has been derived

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMBO EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

69C of the Act were unearthed amounting to Rs.46,14,892/-. In respect of the aforesaid addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed penalty holding that the assessee has violated the provision of law enumerated in Section

RAJESH MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act. 7. In first appeal, the Assessee reiterated the arguments as made before the AO and further submitted that no material brought on record by the AO to support the additions. Considering the same, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty as imposed by the AO and has held as under:- “..... .... ... I have considered

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 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 28.10.2023 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 Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the said sum of Rs. 18,85,520/- is considered as undisclosed income of the assessee and assessment is made accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated for such unexplained expenditure.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard

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

ITO, WARD - 25(4) , KOLKATA vs. ABHISHEK DAS , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 69C does not apply and subsequent levy u/s 115BBD and imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) is not according

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.,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

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