SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

short term capital gain to the total income of the assesee. 3. In respect of the aforesaid addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

BHABESH MAJUMDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

short capital loss in the revised return of income and submitted that there is no concealment of income in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and prayed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1) (c ) of the Act. According to AO, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the above, the AO decided to impose penalty

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

short “the Act”) dated 02.07.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 143(3)/147) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2006-07. Shri P.K. Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri R.P. Agarwal, Ld. Senior Advocate and Shri Nira Seth, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. ITA No.169/Kol/2014

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]

short term capital loss and (iii) disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order wherein AO made additions in respect to these three items and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect to these three

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

short termed capital gain is assessed at Rs. 5,35,081/-. 6 Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. A.Y. 2016-17 Penalty proceeding u/s 271

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 of Rs.7819/- as below :- “Order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 During the A.Y. 2006-07, the assessee understated short term capital gain

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Short Term Capital Gain on sale of units of mutual funds. 4. The learned counsel for the Assessee also drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act before imposing penalty and submitted that the said notice does not specify as to whether the Assessee is guilty of having “furnished inaccurate particulars of income

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Short Term Capital Gain. Thus, according to AO, it was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the computation

SAKUNTALA BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.528/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sakuntala Basu Vs. C.I.T– Xvi, Kolkata Ito Ward 29 (4) 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 27. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aihpb 8814A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :None Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.17/Cit(A)-Xvi/Wd-29(4)/Kol/12-13 Dated 26.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.06.2009. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

short-term capital gain, therefore the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 23.06.2009. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the imposition of Penalty of Rs.1,86,568/-, under section 271(10(c), for the alleged concealment of income being ITA No.1799/Kol/2013

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

short-term capital gain and hence, penalty should not be levied. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. We have given a careful consideration

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

short Term Capital Gain and added the income to total income and taxed thereon at special rate @ 10% u/s. 111A of the Act. No appeal has been preferred against this order by the assessee. Therefore, that addition has become final. Thereafter, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2025/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Ambo Agro Products Ltd. -Vs- Pr.Cit-3, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaeca 5908 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

short ‘the Act’) levying penalty 150% of tax sought to be evaded in the sum of Rs. 4,17,60,309/- vide his order dated 24.08.2016. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. Pr. CIT was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts

ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

short span of time and mere payment by cheque and receipt of cheque does not render its transaction genuine. The Revenue further contended that sometimes accounts apparent may not be real. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court found that it is not disputed by the Revenue that the shares of these assessees were already shown in their earlier Balance Sheet

SANTOSH KUMAR RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 22, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

short term capital gain to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed while rejecting the loss incurred in derivative transactions. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

SMT. MINU GUPTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

short “NCL”). 3. Briefly stated facts as taken note by AO are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, capital gain and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had claimed LTCG amounting to Rs.46,83,790/- on sale of shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. and M/s. NCL, which