M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

68 to 69D of the Act but the term has been specifically defined for the purposes of levy of penalty Section 271AAB of the Act. 5. The two sub-clauses (i) & (ii) contained in clause (c) of Explanation 271AAB which define 'undisclosed income' can be further broken two parts; sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Section 271AAB

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 of the I.T. Act in the hand of the assessee. Addition:- Rs. 30,00,000/- 11. Swarnim Commosale Pvt. Ltd:- During the year the assessee received of Rs.38,00,000/-- as unsecured loan '" from the company. The A/R furnished loan confirmation, Balance sheet, Bank statement and copy of ITR acknowledgment. After perusal of records furnished

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 of the I.T. Act in the hand of the assessee. Addition:- Rs. 30,00,000/- 11. Swarnim Commosale Pvt. Ltd:- During the year the assessee received of Rs.38,00,000/-- as unsecured loan '" from the company. The A/R furnished loan confirmation, Balance sheet, Bank statement and copy of ITR acknowledgment. After perusal of records furnished

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/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee in respect of the income of Rs.24,31,220/-. 3. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since

ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOSAN DEPOSITS & ADVANCES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68, Section 56, Section 80G, Section 88 and various other section which were relevant for the purpose of interpretation of the word “sum” and cash credit. Same has been reiterated and underlined by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amonbolu Rajaiyah in 102 ITR 423; The Allahabad High Court

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

68 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the bills for Rs.2,00,000/- were not produced to prove the supply of bricks. This was one of the footings on which levy of penalty was based. If supply was made then there has to be a bill to support the same. This was sought

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

274 of the income Tax Act inviting the explanation of the assessee as to why penalty under section 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

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.”

274 of the Act dated 28..08.2013. The AO finally levied the penalty of ₹23,68,786/- 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

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147/143 (3) of the Act was made in which the cash deposit of Rs.1,32,78,248/- and other deposits of Rs.93,19,076/- with the total amount of Rs.2,25,97,324/- were added. These deposits were in the assessee’s savings bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank during the FY 2011-12. The assessment order

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147/143 (3) of the Act was made in which the cash deposit of Rs.1,32,78,248/- and other deposits of Rs.93,19,076/- with the total amount of Rs.2,25,97,324/- were added. These deposits were in the assessee’s savings bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank during the FY 2011-12. The assessment order

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

274,795/-\nwas duly deducted under Section 194A of the Act. (Page-90)\nDuring the course of the assessment proceedings, notice/s 142(1)\nissued seeking details of unsecured loan raised during the financial\nyear 2010-11, indicating the name(s), complete postal address and\nPAN(s) of the loan creditors, the assessee furnished the loan\nconfirmation and produced

JHUMA CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-1(3) Jhuma Chatterjee Aaykar Bhavan, Opposite Bf-151 Ground Floor, Sector-1, Ramakrishna School, Po Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064 Vs. Asansol, Pin-713305, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajepc3975K Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

68,310/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.10.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein addition of ₹ 21,62,303/- was made in respect of difference between market value Jhuma Chatterjee; A.Y. 2014-15 and value of the property. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with

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 RISHI F. L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. Similarly, an amount of Rs.5058 being found as positive balance also added u/s. 69C of the Act. Against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he confirmed the said two additions. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 (1) ( c) of the Act, to which

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

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

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

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 and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) of the Act in Badalia Group of cases. The assessee

RAMESH CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 31(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Ramesh Chowdhury…………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 7, Padda Pukur Road, Kol – 700020. [Pan: Acspc5253B] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(4), Kolkata………...………………………......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. K. Kamaluddin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 8,68,870/- For The A.Y. 2015-16. Further The Case Of The Appellant Was Selected For The Scrutiny & The Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of Act After Making The Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Bills Amounting To Rs.38,35,643/-. The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Act.

68,870/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. Further the case of the appellant was selected for the scrutiny and the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of Act after making the disallowance on account of sundry creditors Bills amounting to Rs.38,35,643/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings