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

153C read with section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances.” (ii) PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Limited (ITAT No. 264 of 2016) dated 24.08.2016 : (Calcutta) In this case, the Honorable High Court observed that the Ld. ITAT, Kolkata was of the opinion that

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 ]

153C read with 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 ]

153C read with 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 ]

153C read with 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 ]

153C read with 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

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.

TDS and TCS of Rs.1,32,12,469/-without assigning any reasons thereof. 9. 208 Advance Tax That, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in giving short credit of advance tax of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- without assigning any reasons thereof. 10. 140A Self That, on the facts of the case

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 144C sets out the procedure to be Provisions of subsection 6, 7, 8 and 9 of section 144C sets out the procedure to be Provisions of subsection 6, 7, 8 and 9 of section 144C sets out the procedure to be followed by the dispute resolution panel in followed by the dispute resolution panel in issue of the direction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

TDS and reversed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We find in this backdrop of pleadings that CIT (A)’s order qua the instant twin issue(s) reads as follows:- "5 I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that facts emerging from

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

TDS and reversed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We find in this backdrop of pleadings that CIT (A)’s order qua the instant twin issue(s) reads as follows:- "5 I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that facts emerging from

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

TDS and reversed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We find in this backdrop of pleadings that CIT (A)’s order qua the instant twin issue(s) reads as follows:- "5 I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that facts emerging from

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

TDS and reversed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We find in this backdrop of pleadings that CIT (A)’s order qua the instant twin issue(s) reads as follows:- "5 I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that facts emerging from

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

TDS and reversed in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We find in this backdrop of pleadings that CIT (A)’s order qua the instant twin issue(s) reads as follows:- "5 I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have also gone through the assessment order on the issue at hand. I find that facts emerging from

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)

153C, the assessment & consequent demand are not sustainable in law. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, re-opening proceeding has been initiated u/s 148 r.w.s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961, on the basis of vague, arbitrary and suspicious reasoning without attaching the report of investigation wing and without bringing any tangible material on record and without

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being