GLOSTER LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

1) dated 30.03.2023 passed against the assessment order by Assessing Officer, e-Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s. 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 02.03.2021 for AY 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised six grounds, all of which relate to assumption of jurisdiction

I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL EQUITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the of the revenue is dismissed

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

173 (Delhi-Trib). 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Insofar as the arguments of learned DR concerned that he is right in submitting that the Commissioner appeals cannot exercise his jurisdiction in sending back the case to assessing officer within the meaning of section 251 of the act as the power of Commissioner appeals

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)

173 (Delhi)- Assessing Officer should have reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment conclusive proof of escapement at this stage is not necessary. xi) 271 ITR 56 (Hyderabad) (AT)-Amended provision of 147 provides ample power to the Assessing Officer to start reassessment proceedings when he is of the opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Amrabathi Investra

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)

173 (Delhi)- Assessing Officer should have reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment conclusive proof of escapement at this stage is not necessary. xi) 271 ITR 56 (Hyderabad) (AT)-Amended provision of 147 provides ample power to the Assessing Officer to start reassessment proceedings when he is of the opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Amrabathi Investra

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

173 TTJ (Mumbai) 238 dated 19.8.2015, came to the conclusions (i) the object of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions incorporated in Sec.115JB of the Act was to bring out real profit of companies and the thrust was to find out real working results of company. (ii) Inclusion of receipt which are not in the nature of income in computation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

173/­ was unsustainable, and, therefore, the same is deleted. This limb of the ground accordingly stands allowed.” 14. The assessee duly explained to the Ld. CIT(A) that the TDS deducted by other parties was shown receivable by the assessee. However, due to non-supply of the requisite documents- TDS certificates etc by the concerned deductor, the assessee could

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

173(3)/44/2009-IT(A-I)] dated 20.09.2010 relating to section 80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant

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

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

173(3)/44/2009-IT(A-I)] dated 20.09.2010 relating to section 80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

173(3)/44/2009-IT(A-I)] dated 20.09.2010 relating to section 80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

TDS has been made by the assessee. Therefore, all the above mentioned amounts were required to have been added to total income u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act if no tax was deducted from payment to contractors/sub-contractors u/s 194C, the expenditure was not deductible from the earnings

ONLINE COMPUTER & SERVICES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Online Computer & Ito, Ward-1(1), Services Durgapur B-212, Bengal Shristi Vs. Complex, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216. Pan: Aadfo 0585 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Kausik K. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 1,27,428/- On Account Of Late Payment Of Pf & Esi When The Same Was Paid Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act & The Same May Be Please Be Allowed. 2. For That The Ao May Please Be Directed To Allow Credit Of Tds Of Rs. 18,591/- Relevant To The Year Under Appeal.”

TDS of Rs. 18,591/- relevant to the year under appeal.” 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 173 days. The assessee had filed an application prayed for condoning the delay which is placed on record. We after perusing the same find that the delay was due to ill health of the appellant representative

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 16. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted as under: 1. There was sufficient internal accrual during the F.Y. ending 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006 respectively for Rs. 89,71,65,000/- and Rs. 1019969000/-. All the investments in the capital work in progress

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 16. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted as under: 1. There was sufficient internal accrual during the F.Y. ending 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006 respectively for Rs. 89,71,65,000/- and Rs. 1019969000/-. All the investments in the capital work in progress

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with

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]

173 1. We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied

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]

173 1. We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied

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]

173 1. We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied

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]

173 1. We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessment was sought to be reopened beyond four years. Therefore, all the conditions under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment beyond four years are required to be satisfied