JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

147 dated 29.12.2009 passed by the AO is unjustified, erroneous and needs to be summarily cancelled.” 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2002-03 on 13.10.2002. The return of income was assessed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2005. Subsequently, notice

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

TDS)-II, Bhubaneswar that the assessee company had made certain payments on account of Rent during the F.Y. 2006-07 to various parties amounting to Rs. 11,33,85,160/- but no tax was deducted on the sum u/s 1941 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company has claimed the sum as business expenditure. According to section

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

147 of the Act dated 31-03-2022 by the Ld. A.O. without meeting the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of the assessment was contrary to the binding principle of law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), and hence void ab initio

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

147 of the Act for the escapement of the income. But the AO in the reasons recorded has not referred to the above proceedings under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the submission made by Shri Chandak during the TDS

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

147 dated 24/12/2010 itself requires explanations. clarifications and clearly debatable issue which cannot be decided under section 154. On this count also the assessee's request for amendment of order under section 154 is not tenable. 1.3 Lastly the Assessing Officer made addition under section 40(a)(ia) holding that the payment were made to transport contractors and the assessee

SRENIK SINGHVI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

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

TDS certificates, balance-sheets showing the receipt of advances, etc. and in the absence of any new information or material coming to the possession of the Assessing Officer, the reopening by him of the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) on the basis of the same set of facts and the same records was purely based on mere change

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, HOOGLY, HOOGHLY vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MONDAL, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

147 and 148 otiose as regards notices of reopening issued in the cases where the return was originally processed under section 143(1)….." 10. The true test for validity of reassessment proceedings, even in the cases in which original assessment has been completed under section 143(1), must, therefore, lie in whether or not the reasons recorded for reopening

I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. NATRAJ UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BURDWAN

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

TDS certificates filed by the assessee along with the return shows a gross receipts of Rs.1,27,58,952/- in aggregate as opposed to gross receipts (bills received) of Rs.1,09,25,405/- as per Profit & Loss a/c. 2). The dichotomy in the gross receipts amounts to conspicuous escapement of income within the meaning of section 147

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147 read with section 148 of the Act on 04.10.2012 after recording the reasons to believe under section 148(2) of the Act that income has escaped assessment due to certain amounts of expenses being allowed without deduction of TDS

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

147, however, remain the same.' [Emphasis supplied] For the aforestated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs." 8. From the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme court, we note that the AO has no power to review and, therefore, the order

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

section 194-I of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 though TDS was actually made and paid to the credit of Central\nGovernment.\n5. THAT your petitioner reserves the right to prefer further ground(s) and/or\ndelete/modify ground(s)/arguments, submit documents before the final\ndisposal of this appeal.\"\nWe shall first take up the appeal in ITA No. 974/KOL/2024

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of\nfindings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s\n133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied\nwith the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

147. If the [Assessing] Officer has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment79 for any assessment year, he 79may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess79 such income 79and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

147 of the Act and also upheld the addition of Rs. 31,12,50,000/- received by the Assessee as non-refundable grant under section 28(iv) of the Act. However, he deleted the disallowance (subject to directions to AO to verify TDS

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). On the basis of information gathered on records, ld. AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.12.2018 after obtaining the necessary approval u/s 151(1) of the Act from

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS claim was modified and increased. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 11.08.2011. The case of the assessee thereafter selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) vide order dated 26.02.2015. Thereafter the order u/s 154 / 143(3) read with Section 144C was passed on 31.10.2016 with total