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]

loss of Rs. 35,99,13,932/- and survey operation u/s 133A was conducted on 05.05.2014 in the case of Shri Adish Jain and its group. Consequent to that a total disclosure of Rs. 20,79,41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which

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]

loss of Rs. 35,99,13,932/- and survey operation u/s 133A was conducted on 05.05.2014 in the case of Shri Adish Jain and its group. Consequent to that a total disclosure of Rs. 20,79,41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

loss account and other related documents. According to him, all the activities in transaction in relation to the business of the assessee had been reflected in the said audited accounts. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there was no concealment of particulars of income from the side of the ass. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that

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

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

loss and prejudice whereas in case the delay is condoned, no public policy will be prejudiced.” 1.2. On considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay

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]

loss on penny stocks claimed by the assessee and separate penalty proceeding initiated by the AO by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte

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

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

loss account being treated as undisclosed receipts. 3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee allowed on the ground of addition of Rs. 23,11,773/- on account of difference in contract receipt as per Form 26AS but dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the addition

UDYOGI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

loss it would not amount to concealment and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(C) cannot be levied. Further in a case CIT V.SSP Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman282(P&H) it has been held thus- Mere erroneous claim for deduction in the absence of any concealment or giving of inaccurate particulars is no ground for levying penalty u/s 271

GREENEX CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.657/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Greenex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.………....................................................……Appellant 4/1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaacg8396G] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata…..…....…...................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 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 12.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Kolkata-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(A)-20 Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The It Act, 1961 At Rs.20,06,030/- By Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Had Made Disclosure During The Search To Buy Metal Peace & Avoid Litigation & Hence No Penalty Is To Be Levied U/S 271Aab.

set off against the derivative loss. 5. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that the search action of the Assessing Officer was not justified. However, he restricted the penalty to 10% holding that it was mandatorily leviable even the assessee fulfils all the required conditions as prescribed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act that the assessee surrenders income

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

SUNIL KUMAR SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271(1)(c) for wrong claiming of set off of brought forward capital loss. 2 For that Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the finding of Ld AO that claim of set off of brought forward loss was intentional and not an error or mistake. For that Ld CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty

IMAGE FINVEST & LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata 200, Block-A, Bangur Avenue, Vs Kolkata-700055 Pan: Aaaci 5378 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

set off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 5,61,182/-. The ld. AO was observed from the profit & loss account that the assessee had written off liabilities to the tune of Rs. 3,97,596/-. However, while computing the total income in the return, the amount was not considered as income. The ld. AO confronted with the discrepancy

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 30,927/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee filed the appeal before

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

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

set aside the order of Id. CIT (A) and direct the\nId. AO to delete the penalty.\nΑ.Υ. 2015-16\nITA No. 2586/KOL/2025\n6. In this appeal, the assessee has raised additional ground which is\nextracted below:-\n\"Additional Ground 1:\n\"That, the Ld. A.O. erred in levying penalty was 271

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

loss voluntarily to avoid litigation and requested the Assessing Officer to not initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). (e) We paid the tax due and challan copy is enclosed. (f) No appeal is filed. In addition, the assessee referred to various case laws. These documents have not been held as false either by the ld. Assessing Officer during

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from 02.02.2021 to 15.06.2021 and Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. dismissed the appeal

HANUMAN STEEL WIRES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargandshri Sanjay Awasthi

loss of Rs.25,70,481/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and share premium vide order dated 21.03.2015. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the impugned penalty was imposed. In the quantum