Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

70 results for “TDS”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai563 Delhi445 Hyderabad274 Bangalore256 Chennai175 Cochin89 Jaipur86 Kolkata70 Ahmedabad45 Chandigarh41 Indore30 Surat28 Guwahati17 Nagpur16 Visakhapatnam16 Karnataka15 Patna14 Pune13 Lucknow13 Rajkot11 Jodhpur10 Allahabad9 Cuttack9 Dehradun7 Amritsar6 Panaji5 Raipur5 Ranchi3 Gauhati1 Agra1 Telangana1 Varanasi1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 153A61 Addition to Income56 Section 6851 Section 143(3)42 Search & Seizure34 Disallowance28 Section 25027 Section 143(2)26 Section 26325 Section 132

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4

22

Section 143(1)21

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS at Rs. 1,90,719/- and at last assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 56,18,05,280/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by holding that the assessee himself does not wish to pursue the appeal

KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Krypton Distributors Llp (Earlier Known As Krypton Ito, Ward 12(1), Distributors P. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Flat No.1A, 1, Abdul Rasul Chowringhee Square, Vs. Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700026, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5298G Assessee By : Shri Manoj Katuruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Katuruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

TDS of ₹45,962/- deducted and net amount of ₹41,3,654/- was credited into the bank account of the assessee. In this background, now the issue before us is whether the sales consideration received by the assessee for 40 lacs 2% non-cumulative redeemable preference of M/s Easter (India) Chemicals Ltd. is genuine or liable to be added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIVEK GUPTA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1557/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 68

TDS u/s 195 of the Act on payment of Overseas Agents Commission. A survey was conducted on 04.11.2019 u/s 133A of the Act and certain documents were seized. During the course of survey, the AO noted that the assessee has brought back its his own cash in the garb of unsecured loans on the basis of the statement recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders Yours faithfully

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders Yours faithfully

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2128/KOL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

Seizure operation. 4. In view of above discussion the value of stock difference clearly represents undisclosed income coming under the purview of explanation (c) to section 271AAB, as it was not recorded in the books of accounts on or before the date of search. The year in question being a specified year, I consider it a fit case for imposition

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1241/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1242/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

search and seizure operation. The VAT details, the TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2507/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69CSection 80G

search and seizure operation and documents placed during the course of assessment proceedings was perused by the AO. The AO then passed an assessment 3 I.T.A. No. 2507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. order dated 02.02.2024 assessing total income at Rs.26,24,61,058/-. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

search & seizure action it was observed that the assessee, during the period of ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23, had received unsecured loan from various lenders. Accepting of such unsecured loans & paying of interest on that behalf was also affirmed by the assessee and details of which are as under:- 3 Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd Name of the loan creditor Amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BENTEC INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

seizure operation, no incriminating material was found. The A.O. issued notice u/s 153A directing the assessee to file return u/s 153A of the Act and in response to such notice, the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 19.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 1,17,20,770/- as was declared u/s 139 of the Act. Thereafter, statutory notices

INDIAN WIRE AND STEEL PRODUCTS ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow

ITA 1160/KOL/2019[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2Nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaafi 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 250

Search & Seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand operation u/s 132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators

ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA vs. RAMESWARA INFRASTRUCTURES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and 11

ITA 2692/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata.….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd ………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] C.O. 19/Kol/2025 (In Ita Nos.2692 /Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd.….……………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata...………………………...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

search and seizure operation. From such details submitted by the appellant, it is observed that the loans taken by the appellant company from M/s Murmuria Promoters Pvt Ltd, are part of the disclosure of Rs. 5 crores made by the appellant company. On perusal of the ledgers of these companies, it is observed that these loans were ongoing loans wherein

RAMESH KUMAR DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2386/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 80G

search and seizure action in the case of the political party and the donation was treated as bogus. However, he is not discussed the material on the basis of which the finding of bogus donation was arrived at during the course of the said proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) as well considered the statement of facts and other details

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 908/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.908/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, C.C-4(2), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.........................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent 7B, Alom House, Pretoria Street, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aaaco3518N] Appearances By: Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- 27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 On Account Of Unsecured Loan Amounting To Rs.3,00,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Without Appreciating The Material Brought On Record & Facts Evaluated By The A.O In The Assessment Order.

Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

seizure operation on our group, we request you to provide us such evidence. Also in case you intend to rely on any one's statement for using the same against us, we request you to give us copies of such statements and give us an opportunity of cross examining them. It is observed from the statement of Shri Ajay Prakash

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DECORUM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1762/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

seizure operation. This being the year of the search, return of the instant assessment year was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 31.05.2023. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were also issued on 29.08.2023 & 06.02.2024. The assessee complied these notices and submitted documents/details & explanation which