SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the issues as discussed above, is computed as under. Penalty imposed as per discussion in para 2.0 Rs.17,60,912/- Penalty imposed as per discussion in para 3.0 Rs. 3,82,940/- Penalty imposed as per discussion in para 4.0 Rs. 1,02,511/- Total penalty imposed Rs.22,46,363/-“ 5 Sri Deo Kumar Saraf

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

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

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]

loss to be set off with its income from other heads of income was not allowable and so it was disallowed and accordingly the assessment order was framed and penalty was initiated u/s. 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied on the assessee.” 8. I find that during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 in this case no evidences regarding concealment/undisclosed income in the form of cash seizure (except Rs.2,50,000/-)/paper/documents/stock etc were found and seized. Nothing incriminating/no evidences were found regarding Rs.31

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

loss return and no tax was leviable even after disallowance, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was still leviable. For this view, we stand fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in JCIT, Surat vs Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd [2010] 191 TAXMAN 165 (SC). It is also evident from record that there is no voluntary offer by the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

loss of Rs.72,76,45,862/-. The assessment thereafter was completed on 31.03.2015 after making certain additions/disallowances on other counts. In the assessment order the AO however initiated penalty proceedings in respect of the additional income of Rs.69,00,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act and show cause notice u/s.271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued

M/S CARE CONCERN HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

loss M/s. Care Concern Hospital P.Ltd. & Ors. Rs. 5,05,850/- and allowed carried forward vide his order dt. 27-12-2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271B of the Act for not getting its accounts audited, for not furnishing the same in prescribed pro-forma and for not filing

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

ARTDECO COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं"या: 174 / कोल / 2022 िनधा"रण वष"ः 2015-16

loss account. In our considered view that the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct as further reason that the assessee has disclosed all the facts in the tax return filed by the assessee and thus all the facts were available before AO and nothing was concealed. Even if, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s. 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings us/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms.’ 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section 115JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Loss Account and computation of total income. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated separately.” 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Rashmi Jalan 2.1. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepting the retur The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepting the retur The assessment was completed u/s

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

ACIT, CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONCAST STEEL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

set off the entire addition made by the AO. Therefore as such there was no impact on the income of the assessee except reducing the quantum of brought forward loss. The assessee also submitted that the AO has imposed penalty even on the income of Rs. 40 Lacs which was disclosed in the course of search without considering the fact

S.F. ENGG. WORKS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 31(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 826/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 S.F. Engg. Works.,.................................………………………………….......................................Appellant 22, Gorachand Lane, Kolkata – 700 014. [Pan: Aamfs 4918 D] Ito, Ward 31(2), Kolkata...................………………………………………………………......Respondent Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. Banerjee, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 14, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 24, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 1,28,416/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Electric Supplier & Contractor. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 17.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 4,44,860/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Two Balance Sheets & Trading & Profit & Loss Accounts Were Submitted By The Assessee, One For The Period From 01.04.2010 To 31.05.2010 & The Other For The Period From 01.06.2010 To 31.03.2011. A Consolidated Computation Of Total Income For The Said Two Periods Was Also Submitted By The Assessee Showing A Total Income For The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2011-12

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that two sets of profit and loss

DR. S.N. GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-21, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dr.S.N.Ganguly -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-21, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acwpg8412E) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in the sum of Rs.7819/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y.2006-07 on 31.07.2006 declaring his total income of Rs.6,25,590/-. In the said return he computed short