ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Further, in the case of Punjab Tyres [1986] 162 ITR 517 (Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that when surrender is made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Further, in the case of Punjab Tyres [1986] 162 ITR 517 (Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that when surrender is made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Further, in the case of Punjab Tyres [1986] 162 ITR 517 (Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that when surrender is made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. Further, in the case of Punjab Tyres [1986] 162 ITR 517 (Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that when surrender is made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

92,45,700/- Bazaar Street, Kolkata. 3. Accretions from 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkaya from 2,62,76,335/- 01.01.2005 to 18.08.2006 4. Jessore Road Project of Diamond Group 12,00,000/- Various miscellaneous transactions and receipts from 1st April, 5. 26,00,000/- 2005 to 22nd August, 2006 Total 4,12,22,035/- In effect, the assessee was in possession

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

92,45,700/- Bazaar Street, Kolkata. 3. Accretions from 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkaya from 2,62,76,335/- 01.01.2005 to 18.08.2006 4. Jessore Road Project of Diamond Group 12,00,000/- Various miscellaneous transactions and receipts from 1st April, 5. 26,00,000/- 2005 to 22nd August, 2006 Total 4,12,22,035/- In effect, the assessee was in possession

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

92,47,980/- Chapter-VIA Assessed Income Rs.112,66,71,699/- Assessed Income (R/o Rs.112,66,71,700 5. The order is passed as per the provisions of section 143(3)/263 read with section 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of Draft Assessment Order is issued to the assessee. Tax payable as per calculation sheet. 6. Penalty proceeding

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KWALITY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Kwality Ltd. 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th F-82, Shivaji Place, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Poorva, 110, Shanti Delhi-100 027 Pally, E.M. Bye-Pas, [Pan No.Aabck 1289 R] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 Dated 08.11.2016. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.09.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “(I) That, Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In Respect To He Statement Of Facts) That The Of The Case Law Relied Upon In Deciding The Case In Favour Of The Assessee, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee. (Ii) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

92,148/- In respect of the aforesaid addition of Rs.42,06,434.00 which was offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, 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 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

3 are partly allowed.” 7. We now come to Revenue’s three appeals. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contends during the course of hearing that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing u/s 271AB penalt(ies) based on impugned search in all three cases. He submits that the purpose of above

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

3 are partly allowed.” 7. We now come to Revenue’s three appeals. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contends during the course of hearing that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing u/s 271AB penalt(ies) based on impugned search in all three cases. He submits that the purpose of above

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AKA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

3 are partly allowed.” 7. We now come to Revenue’s three appeals. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contends during the course of hearing that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing u/s 271AB penalt(ies) based on impugned search in all three cases. He submits that the purpose of above

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). . 2. The AO noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in column 18 of Form 3CD of TAR that the opening WDV (written down value) of intangible asset as Rs. 32,12,50,000/- and the assessee had claimed

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

92,020/-. Finally, the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act was framed vide order dated 30.03.2015 at total income of Rs. 4,74,16,890/-. Pertinent to mention that the assessee had made a disclosure of Rs. 3,98,15,530/- during the course of search as per details as under

SAFIUL MALLICK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27,HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

92,927/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before

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

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAGHUNANDAN MODY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1439/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer..............................…………………………............................................Appellant Ward 36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. Shri Raghunandan Mody....................…………………………………………………….....Respondent Rasoi Court, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Burdwan – 700 001 [Pan: Aexpm 8474 P] Appearances By: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.M. Surana Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 31, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 08, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.03.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 11,38,202/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty of Rs. 11,38,202/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,990/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3

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