AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

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

153A (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 2001-02 9,24,202/- 20,46,839/- 29,71,040/- 6,86,000/- 2002-03 7,31,722/- 93,27,534/- 1

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

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

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

1. Hence the Id AO had rightly not considered the aspect of deemed dividend and claim of depreciation on motor lorries at 30% while framing the search assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Moreover, we find that the assessee had given proper explanations regarding these items before the lower authorities as reproduced above. We find that the assessee had also

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

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

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

1. Hence the Id AO had rightly not considered the aspect of deemed dividend and claim of depreciation on motor lorries at 30% while framing the search assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Moreover, we find that the assessee had given proper explanations regarding these items before the lower authorities as reproduced above. We find that the assessee had also

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1 to 196 of the paper book. The ld. Commissioner has gone through the record and thereafter set aside the assessment order for denovo enquiry. Before us under Grounds No. 3 to 5, the assessee has pleaded that the claim of 80IB deduction was the subject matter of original assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated

M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1 to 4 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) not adjudicating the issue of validity of assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on the ground that the assessment being unabated on the date of search and therefore ,AO has no jurisdiction to make additions without any incriminating material found

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

153A of the Act on 31.12.2010, whereas the regular assessment for the Asst Year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2010. Number of additions were made in those assessments which were agitated by the assessee before the ld CITA and the said appeals were disposed off by a consolidated order dated 6.8.2012 for the Asst

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 16.12.2021.\nThereafter, the statutory notices were issued along with questionnaire\nand assessee duly replied the said notices. During the course of\nassessment proceedings, the Id. AO noticed that the assessee has\nraised ₹7,57,50,000/- from six parties as unsecured loans.\nThe assessee submitted before the Id. AO that these loans

SUBHAJIT KR. GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

TDS of Rs.9,56,413/- and credit of seized cash of Rs.2,35,600/- as payment of advance tax. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant as self-assessment tax. Thus, as per the return of income there was claim of refund of Rs.24/-. However, on perusal of the declaration petition dated 28.03.2011 filed before

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 30/03/2022. In the assessment order the following additions were made: a) Addition of Rs.1,90,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. (b) Addition of Rs.3

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 30/03/2022. In the assessment order the following additions were made: a) Addition of Rs.1,90,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. (b) Addition of Rs.3

M/S. INLAND TEEVRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS is concerned, the issue has been settled in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Irrigation Adritec P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2023) 146 taxmann.com 389. The said decision has also been followed by various other Benches of the Tribunal. This issue

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:-2009-10 Dcit, Circle-3, Asansol V/S. M/S Sanjay Transport At “Parmar Building”, Agency, 41, N.S.B. 54, G.T. Road (West), Road, Raniganj-713 347 Asansol-713 304 Burdwan [Pan No.Aavfs 6659 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

sections 143, 153, 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Admission in sworn statement) - Assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 - Assessing Officer made additions as undisclosed income on basis of sworn statements of assessee during search and seizure - Assessee made out an issue that submissions of certain materials by him were not considered by Assessing Officer - However

DCIT, C.C.-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

TDS on such payment and only on account of accountancy reasons appear as advance in the books of appellant for the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year under appeal, cannot in any manner be considered as avoidance of tax. In other words, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not apply on such advances which are appearing

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RATAN KUMAR SOMANI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

1) NA NA NA 2.12.08 NA NA NA 8 Income declared u/s 153A 1422390 2029890 12518449 54191200 62336025 61567441 NA 9 Date of filing the return u/s 153A 15.3.11 15.3.11 15.3.11 15.3.11 15.3.11 15.3.11 NA 10 Income assessed u/s 153A 22980430 53572690 59137540 853881630 126225500 98194840 NA 11 Date of Order u/s 153A