SANDIP JHUNJHUNWALA,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)© of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be decided on the merits, did\nnot amount to an admission of concealment of income and the levy of penalty on\nsuch basis was liable to be quashed.”\nFrom the above, it is clear that penalty cannot be levied merely on the admission of the\nassessee and there must be some

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A)." It is undisputed fact that, the no incriminating documents were found during the course of search to prove the concealment of income and the penalty was imposed merely on the basis of income surrendered by the appellant in his statement and shown

SVM CERA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GUJRAT vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1). KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A)." It is undisputed fact that, the no incriminating documents were found during the course of search to prove the concealment of income and the penalty was imposed merely on the basis of income surrendered by the appellant in his statement and shown

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

u/s\n271AAB of the Act on the ground that the offering made by the assessee does not\nfall within the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in clause (c) of Section\n271AAB. (page nos. 92 to 142 of Paper Book)\nn) Further, the judicial authorities have also upheld in various case that in case of\nan offering made

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]

income at Rs. 86,11,216/-. Penalty proceedings for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated in the assessment order. In the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) was issued as it was noticed during assessment proceedings that as per cash book of M/s Samridhi Construction for a period

DIPIKA DE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

undisclosed income which was added to the income disclosed in the returns filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. The assessment orders were followed by notices u/s 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Act, and after considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

u/s 271 (1)c of the Act, has failed to specify the specific charge sought to be brought against the appellant. In these circumstances, since the appellant has not been confronted with the specific charge against him, the notice issued for the imposition of the penalty loses its very basis and this defect, since it has not been cured, makes