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

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." penalty proceedings." (emphasis supplied) (emphasis supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the fac It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the fac It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective as it did not specify whether penalty was being imposed for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of SSA’S Emeral Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC), orders of the ITAT Kolkata Benches

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. Ground No. 1 is relating to the notice under section 271(1)(c) being defective as it did not specify whether penalty was being imposed for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of SSA’S Emeral Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC), orders of the ITAT Kolkata Benches

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]

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 Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case

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]

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 Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case

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]

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 Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case

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

13 e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from

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” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND 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

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

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

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 ]

13. Since the additional ground projects the grievances of the assessee which arises from the order of CIT(A) and facts available on record, the same is admitted for adjudication keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

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 ]

13. Since the additional ground projects the grievances of the assessee which arises from the order of CIT(A) and facts available on record, the same is admitted for adjudication keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case

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

13. A perusal of sub-clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) would indicate that penalty would be equivalent or to the extent of three times of taxes, if any, payable by an assessee of the addition made to his income could be charged under this sub-clause. In the present ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran case