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]

u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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]

u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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]

u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled

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

u/s 148 of the Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed income which included

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

u/s 148 of the Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed income which included

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

u/s 148 of the Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed income which included

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

u/s 148 of the Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish explanation, papers/documents and since despite availing sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard as the AO AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14. imposed the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded by considering the difference between the total assessed income which included

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 from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) was justified. 6. Considering the above discussion Ground No 1 and 2 of the appeal one dismissed. Since no change for alteration in the grounds are made during proceedings therefore, Ground No. 3 is dismissed as it need no adjudication.” 8. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable

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 from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

HANSIT MERCHANTS PVT.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 253 could not be filed within the stipulated limitation date of 01.10.2022. 8. Your petitioner further wants to state that in the meantime, there was change of incumbency on couple of occasions under this charge and the undersigned has taken over this charge only in the month of November, 2022. 9. Moreover, it is also to mention here that