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

MONISH RANJAN DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2) of Section 80-CCC of the I.T. ACT, the surrender value is taxable in the hands of the assessee in the year of receipts. The assessee had, however, not offered any income on this account. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act dated 13- 03-2020 had been issued and served upon the assessee. In response

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

2 23/03/2014 declaring taxable income of Rs.4,15,890/-. In this return, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards long term capital gain from sale of equity shares of Quest Financial Services Ltd.. Thereafter, based on the information, case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and during

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

SRI SANAT KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (I.T.), CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

90(2) while computing the tax liability of the Appellant. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to Compute the UK Salary Income of the Appellant at accordingly and also allow credit for taxes as held as above.” Page 3 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 202/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Sanat Kumar Das. 4. Admittedly, the impugned order of penalty

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty of Rs.94,17,382/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2014, reporting total income of Rs. Nil, after set off of brought forward loss of 2 Height Insurance Services

M/S. JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the primary contention of the assessee is that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 25.06.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee, who is a key person connected with

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

90,06,080/-. 3.3 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tri- bunal. During the course of the appeal, detailed arguments were made

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

90,06,080/-. 3.3 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tri- bunal. During the course of the appeal, detailed arguments were made

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

2 Sweta Chirimar, AY 2012-13 by the assessee of Rs.1,24,470/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which was also affirmed by the appellate authority. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee claimed deduction of LTCG on sale of shares of Rs.6,70,139/- u/s

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

90,811/- on a turnover of Rs. 3,77,62,233/- did not allegedly match with the transactions visible in the bank account in HSBC Bank (supra). Thereafter the ld. AO proceeded to record reasons under clause (a) of explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act, indicating that an amount of Rs. 5,21,17,075/- had escaped assessment

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

90,708/- (Out of which there were cash withdrawals of Rs. 10,00,000/-). The AO was led to believe that the total income declared at Rs. 8,50,944/- on a turnover of Rs. 5,89,94,424/- did not allegedly match with the transactions visible in the bank account in HSBC Bank (supra). Thereafter the ld. AO proceeded

SWATIPUSHP DEALERS PVT. LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH SNOWTEMP COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.) ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(2), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd.,……………………Appellant (Since Merged With Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 101, 1St Floor, 18, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700033 [Pan:Aapcs5069P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-11(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 11, 2024 O R D E R

271(1)(c) was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer vide his order dated 14.06.2018. The ld. Assessing Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.2,95,95,575/-. 2 Swatipushp Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (since merged with Snowtemp Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 6. Dissatisfied with this order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 03.07.2018. This appeal has been

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2016-17 and he was sent on an assignment to United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits

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

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

u/s No. INR off) appeal was filed 1 Q1 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,23,088 33,447 2,56,540 2,56,540 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034548 989 2 Q2 2018 154 TDS/1819 25-Jul- 2,69,015 32,198 3,01,210 3,01,210 -19 /27Q/D/1 2019 00034549 022 3 Q3 2018 154 TDS/1819