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)

3) on 19.11.2018 at a total income of Rs. 23,75,350/-. During the year under consideration the assessee entered into a joint development agreement in respect of his landed property for developing premises. As per agreement, the assessee was entitled to receive 50% built up area, which he took possession on 05.06.2013 and received

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

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

3,68,938/- vide order dated 01.02.2022.\n4. The Id. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Id. AO by upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by treating

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5.\nAfter hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty was imposed by the Id. AO by treating the sales made by the assessee to SR Trading of ₹11,31,000/- as bogus. We note that the sales were duly recorded in the books of account

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 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 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

92 CA(3) of the Act on 29.11.2018, tax calculation sheet, demand notice and penalty notice u/s 274 of the Act dated 29.11.2018 are withdrawn. Vide same letter, I.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Philips India Limited the AO enclosed the impugned draft assessment order passed on 21.12.2018. 3.5 In terms of the provisions of section 144C

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

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

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

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

3) of the Act on\n06.06.2014 accepting the return income of the assessee. In the meantime,\nthe AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and\nimposed penalty @ 10% on the suo moto income offered by the assessee\nu/s 271AAB of the Act. Being aggrieved against the said levy of penalty,\nthe assessee preferred an appeal before

INDU MOHTA L/H OF CHHAGAN LAL MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs 1,56,877/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the addition of Rs.5,07,695/- made in the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The undersigned wishes to submit that the assessee had filed an appeal against the quantum addition of Rs.5,07,695/-, which was subsequently settled

RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Kumar Agarwal Huf Asst. Cit, Circle 37, Kolkata, 15, Ganagdhar Babu 3, Govt. Place, Lane, Kolkata – 700001, Vs Eden House, Bow Bazar, West Bengal Kolkata – 700012, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahhr3501E Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. S. Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be levied. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, change and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before hearing of the appeal and claim further relief or reliefs which is necessary for the ends of justice. 3. At the outset, it was informed

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 18.4 Even the unsecured loans taken by the were repaid in the subsequent years

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 18.4 Even the unsecured loans taken by the were repaid in the subsequent years

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 18.4 Even the unsecured loans taken by the were repaid in the subsequent years

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 18.4 Even the unsecured loans taken by the were repaid in the subsequent years

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Panel”) and consequently incorporated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w S. 144C

NORTH INDIA WIRES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjo Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle 3(1), Kolkata North India Wires Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12, Regent House Govt. Place Chowringhee Square, East, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn0120A Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was received by the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was got prepared and filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 244 days. The ld. Counsel North Indian Wires Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 for the assessee stated that the delay is for genuine and bonafide reasons and assessee has not been benefited

SHREE HANUMAN WELFARE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION,KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, in light of discussions made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

92,400/; is taxed at MMR u/s 164 of the Act r.w.s 13(2)(a) and 13(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty proceeding is also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income and providing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1. In light of this action, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD _ 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.431 & 432/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd…………………...........................………...…..…Appellant Room No.A, 1St Floor, 1C, Jorabagan Street, M.D. Road, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aabcj4827C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) , Kolkata…….. …..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Ita No.431/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmations Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, The Ita No.432/Kol/2022 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which In Consequential Of The Aforesaid Quantum Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Cit(A). We, Therefore, Firstly Take Up The Assessee’S Appeal Relating To The Quantum Additions.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which in consequential of the aforesaid quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). We, therefore, firstly take up the assessee’s appeal relating to the quantum additions. I.T.A No.431&432/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd ITA No.431/Kol/2022 - The assessee in this appeal