DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

12,525/- for the assessment years 2002-03 , 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively on the ground that the Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) protects the assessee from penalty on admitted undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act without appreciating that the assessee has made the disclosure in the Assessment Years

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

reassessment order is bad in law. 12. On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward On the issue of jurisdiction, I find that it is admitted fact that the ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata, has jurisdiction

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

12. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the facts of the case. In the written submissions filed, it is stated by the assessee that no penalty can be levied on the estimated income but the Ld. CIT(A) made two contradictory observations in two subsequent paragraphs leading the assessee to believe that he has erroneously dismissed

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

12. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the facts of the case. In the written submissions filed, it is stated by the assessee that no penalty can be levied on the estimated income but the Ld. CIT(A) made two contradictory observations in two subsequent paragraphs leading the assessee to believe that he has erroneously dismissed

SHRI RAVI BADALIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

12,00,000/- 2009-10 Rs. 15,00,000/- 2010-11 Rs.4,60,00,000/- Consequent to the search, notices under section 153A were issued by the Assessing Officer, in response to which, the assessee filed his returns of income for the relevant six years including all the four years under consideration offering therein the income surrendered during the course

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

12 penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

12-01- 2016 declaring total income of Rs.38,05,69,310/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22-03-2016 by accepting the returned income of Rs.38,05,69,310/-. However, while completing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2016, the AO recorded his opinion that assessee is liable to penalty

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

12, 1990 that the Commissioner of Income Tax being an authority mentioned u/s 116 of the Income Tax Act, has the power to rectify an obvious mistake (either of fact or of law) in any order passed by him provided it is established that the mistake is one apparent from records. In the instant case. the findings

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

12, 1990 that the Commissioner of Income Tax being an authority mentioned u/s 116 of the Income Tax Act, has the power to rectify an obvious mistake (either of fact or of law) in any order passed by him provided it is established that the mistake is one apparent from records. In the instant case. the findings

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

12 n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because

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

12. As far as ITA Nos. 557/KOL/2023 & other penalty appeals are concerned, these are the appeals directed by the Revenue in the case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because