BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "68", "36(1)(va)", "40A(7)", "133(6)", "132(1)", "147", "139" ], "issues": "Whether penalty

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) lacks application of mind, is unsustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. 17. Having heard the rival submissions and the arguments, it is essential to understand the legal position on the facts of the case. In the case of National Textiles

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) lacks application of mind, is unsustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. 17. Having heard the rival submissions and the arguments, it is essential to understand the legal position on the facts of the case. In the case of National Textiles

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

68,786/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it had claimed depreciation on the land inadvertently and same mistake was rectified by the auditor in writing by filing a letter

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,589/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the present

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

271(1)(c) be not imposed upon the assessee. This notice is also dated 30.12.2019, i.e. the day when a notice in Form No. 7 under section 156 by raising the demand was issued. Thus according to the ld. Counsel, the Assessing Officer failed to adhere the procedure contemplated in section 144C of the Income

PUTUL JASH,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 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. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

68 of the Act and non-acceptability of such explanation cannot extend to infringement to s.271(1)(c). 7.That without any prejudice to the above, the instant case does not fall within the parameters of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), in particular Clause- B, inasmuch as the explanation of the appellant was not found to be false which

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) is available for declaration u/s 132(4) is erroneous and arbitrary since Section 271AAA(2) grants immunity from penalty under similar situations.” 3.1 The facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and engaged in several types of business viz. real estate development, export of fruit and Jewellery business. There was a search

BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. C.I.T-CIRCLE-I, KOLKATA, SILIGURI

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

68 of the Act. 4. Besides the above, the assessee had shown outstanding dues payable to Bholanath Rice Mill of Rs.9,00,000/- but the aforesaid party has shown as outstanding to the party as nil. The AO therefore wanted to treat the aforesaid sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as a benefit that accrued to the assessee as a result

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]

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. The AO computed the disallowance only on the basis of audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD filed along with return of income. The assessee has not contested this addition of disallowance of expenses of Rs.3,01,590/- and assessment to the same

SUPER REGRACTORIES,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The appeal was time barred by 11 days and on the basis of Affidavit dated 13.11.2013 filed by Shri Binod Kumar Shaw, Proprietor of M/s. Super Refractories, we condone the delay on merit and the appeal is admitted. I.T.A. No. 2229/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 8 3. The assessee

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

68 of the Act and interest income (Rs.50,538/-) from deposits. The ld.AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing ITA No. 2590/Kol/2013-C-AM 1 Smt. Gouri Das Maity inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order without mentioning the specific charge on which the said penalty proceedings have been initiated

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 - Held, yes Section 41(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 -Remission or cessation of trading liability - Assessment year 2002-03 - Whether in view of facts stated under heading 'cash credits', since amounts-in-question were brought forward balances, they could not be added to income of assessee for year under consideration, as question of genuineness thereof could

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

68,848/- on sale of shares and claimed deduction of Rs.4,25,00,000/- u/s. 54F of the Act. In support of his claim, the assessee submitted that he invested Rs. 4 crores in a property (Flat on the 2nd floor and 3rd floor covering built up area of 7500 sq.ft) situated at 23A, Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-19. The assessee

SHRI KEDAR NATH DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,042/- III. Break up of Assessed Income & Additions made head wise : Asst.Year Commission Addition on Profit on Addition on Total Income account of sales account of Addition Assessed the assessed the profit (5=2+4) commission 2002-03 Rs.7,43,460 Rs.1,48,691/- ----- ----- Rs.1,48,691/- 2005-06 Rs.29,08,552/- Rs.5,81,710/- Rs.4,32,934/- Rs.1

M/S BRIJNATH KHANDELWAL & CO,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 34,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities. The return of income for year under consideration was filed by it on 30.10.2006 declaring a loss of Rs.20,79,640/-. In the Profit & Loss Account