TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the transactions are genuine and the payee has accounted for the income, especially where the failure to deduct TDS is due to a bona fide belief or technical lapse. Penalty/Disallowance cannot be imposed where the failure to deduct TDS resulted from a bona fide belief, technical issue, or issue under legal debate

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the transactions are genuine and the payee has accounted for the income, especially where the failure to deduct TDS is due to a bona fide belief or technical lapse. Penalty/Disallowance cannot be imposed where the failure to deduct TDS resulted from a bona fide belief, technical issue, or issue under legal debate

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.

148 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 31-03-2021. 3. In response to the reasons recorded, the assessee stated that a devastating fire had broken out at Dankuni Plant of the assessee on 19-10-2014. This resulted in a huge loss of assets and records inside the premises of the unit. The factory was adequately

RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata. C/O, P. K. Himatsinghka & Co. 41, B. B. Ganguly Vs. Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. (Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS thereon deducted from payment of interest. 9. That the appellant craves to add or amend any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 by showing total income at Rs.19,54,260/-. Subsequently, case of the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS: 6.1.3 Thus, on considering the totality of facts, I am inclined to concur with the view that this cannot be a case of deliberate under reporting of income on part of the appellant. Furthermore, I also note that the appellant has been consistent in offering explanation with regard to the said claim of expenditure in the course of assessment

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

MOUL SHREE JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 426/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Moul Shree Jhunjhunwala,……………….……Appellant 58/3, Kutir Udyog Kendra, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Acqpj6330E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 23Rd, 2024 O R D E R

section 148 on 29.03.2019, which is contrary to the procedure. 7. On the other hand, ld. D.R. was unable to controvert the contention. He simply submitted that Revenue was possessing information that assessee has earned alleged long-term capital gain by trading in penny stock. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer has rightly undertaken this exercise. 8. We have duly considered

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 148 of the Income-tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.” 9.1 Since the facts of the instant case are materially same as that of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 148 of the Income-tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.” 9.1 Since the facts of the instant case are materially same as that of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 148 of the Income-tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.” 9.1 Since the facts of the instant case are materially same as that of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

section 148 of the Income-tax Act. We are in complete agreement with the Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd.., AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 view taken by the High Court. The special leave petition stands dismissed.” 9.1 Since the facts of the instant case are materially same as that of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

PRADEEP KUMAR BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 of the Act and the assessee filed the return\nof income in compliance thereto on 15.10.2018, by declaring total\nincome of ₹6,82,318/-. The assessee also filed the objections to the\nsaid reopening. Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the\nalong with questionnaire were issued and the assessee complied with\nthe same by filing

TIRUPATI TIMBERS & PACKAGING P. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2018, which is void-ab-initio since he had no reasons to believe as stated in section 147 of the Act and hence the impugned 5 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging Pvt. Limited assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 27.11.2018, is liable to be quashed. Ground - 7: The Appellant craves Leave to add/to

RAJU SAHA,BARASAT, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS NORTH vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

148 of the Act was issued to the assesssee after issuance of order under section 148A(d) of the 2 Raju Saha Act with the prior approval of the specified authority, but the assessee did not make any compliance. As the assessee did not furnish any information, the assessee was again requested to furnish the requisite information

TARUN KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 148 of the Act, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that due to COVID-19 pandemic the same could not be filed. Prima facie the assessee did not have any dispute regarding the income assessed but it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the TDS

I.T.O.,WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG vs. M/S MARDA ASSOCIATES, KALIMPONG

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ii. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the payment of amount credited separately which is not part of sale bill as commission. iii. That the appellant may be allowed adding, amend or alter the grounds of appeal

RAJENDRA KUMAR KAPOOR,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of this amount under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the loan was received from a shell company and the show-cause notice was not replied to. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided loan confirmation

BINOD MOKTAN,KALIMPONG vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [Pan: Aripm6300Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Received Contractual Receipts Of Rs.51,04,000 From M/S. Gajmer Works During The A.Y. 2018-19 & Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Amounting To Rs.54,040/- Was Also Made On The Said Receipts. However, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed A Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, The Assessing Officer Completed The

TDS) amounting to Rs.54,040/- was also made on the said receipts. However, the assessee did not file its return of income for the said assessment year. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148