BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

50 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi328Mumbai312Jaipur153Ahmedabad137Hyderabad110Indore85Chennai66Pune64Surat62Kolkata50Rajkot48Bangalore45Chandigarh32Allahabad24Amritsar23Raipur23Nagpur16Ranchi12Lucknow11Visakhapatnam10Patna10Agra8Guwahati7Jodhpur6Jabalpur6Dehradun6Cuttack2

Key Topics

Section 6861Section 271(1)(c)45Addition to Income43Section 14736Section 14834Section 143(3)31Unexplained Cash Credit28Section 25024Penalty

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

unexplained investments and passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23.11.2011. The Id. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by issue of notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271

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

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

24
Section 143(2)22
Section 14A15
Unexplained Investment9

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

ITA 906/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

penalty of Rs. 6,54,064/- has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there was an alleged investment in property by the assessee which was not proved before the Ld.AO. 1.2 In this case the facts, as culled out from the documents before us, need to be recapitulated as they have a bearing

DEY TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2157/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

investment u/s 69 of the Act, Rs.17,79,415/- difference in cash balance treated as unexplained money for Rs. 1,04,403/-, concealed sales of ‘note pads’ for Rs. 1,00,000/-, outstanding liability appearing in the balance sheet for Rs. 8,99,080/- and on payment to parties without making TDS for Rs. 8,34,119/-. Thereafter penalty proceedings

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1804/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 15Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 45Section 56Section 69ASection 69B

Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money U/s 69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices but the assessee remained non-responsive, consequently the Assessing Officer issued multiple show-cause notices proposing of levying of penalty u/s 272A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1) , KOLKATA vs. P L G POWER LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1163/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1) Plg Power Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, 11 Pollock Street P7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg9903B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, DR
Section 144Section 271(1)Section 69C

unexplained investment u/s 69C of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) is separately initiated. 4.1 It appears

M/S. TROPEX SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO UJJAWAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1371/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

investing companies, which were rendered undelivered by the postal authorities. As a result, the assessment was framed by treating the share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.2,07,47,000/- as unexplained cash credit under the provisions of the Act. Additionally, penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. TROPEX SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO ULTRA MARKETING PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

investing companies, which were rendered undelivered by the postal authorities. As a result, the assessment was framed by treating the share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.2,07,47,000/- as unexplained cash credit under the provisions of the Act. Additionally, penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S MOONLIGHT RESIDENCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.-13(1), KOLKATA

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1990/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, both appeals have similar facts, they are being disposed of through a common order. M/s Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order dated 25.03.2015 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), primarily because there was admittedly

M/S MOONLIGHT RESIDENCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.-13(1), KOLKATA

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1989/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, both appeals have similar facts, they are being disposed of through a common order. M/s Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order dated 25.03.2015 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), primarily because there was admittedly

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days. As per the affidavit of the assessee namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, it has been deposed that the appeal orders of the CIT(A) were received by the assessee

BAPPADITYA CHAKRABORTY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-24, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 1395 days. As per the affidavit of the assessee namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, it has been deposed that the appeal orders of the CIT(A) were received by the assessee

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

ONE STOP COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 636/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

unexplained and added back u/s 68 of the I.T. ACT, 1961. Considering the facts and circumstances, the sum so credited amounting to Rs. 4,88,00,000/- in the books of the assessee company is hereby treated as bogus and added back to the total Income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s

ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ LIFE CARE NURSING & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2038/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee during the A.Y.2012-13 and subsequently added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is also initiated on this score for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. Commission: In this year the assessee

ITO, WARD - 3(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAMZ MOVIES & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2569/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee during the A.Y.2012-13 and subsequently added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is also initiated on this score for concealment of income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. Commission: In this year the assessee

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

investment to the file of the A.O. with the following observations – "We find that before the CIT-A the assessee produced another statement along with supporting documents involving the addition on hand. The CIT-A considering the same deleted the addition made by the AO. It was contested by the Id. DR that a new statement