SURANA DIAMOND JEWELLERY PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

246A which is pending before the Ld. ClT (A) for disposal. It is to state that the A.O., as the records would reveal has taken into consideration all relevant documentary evidences which not only 'establish the purchases which have been made by the assessee in support of which Bills have been examined by the A.O. and its delivery

SURANA DIAMOND JEWELLERY PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

246A which is pending before the Ld. ClT (A) for disposal. It is to state that the A.O., as the records would reveal has taken into consideration all relevant documentary evidences which not only 'establish the purchases which have been made by the assessee in support of which Bills have been examined by the A.O. and its delivery

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

purchased the shares of Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. are bogus/paper entities. 2.4. On the basis of above observation, it is evident that M/s Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. had brought back its unaccounted income of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12 by way of issuing share capital and share premium. 2.5. In view

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

246A. 2 iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to appreciate the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashis Agarwal dated 04.05.2022 dealing with notices u/s.148 Issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 which was followed by the AO by treating notice u/s.148 issued in un-amended provisions

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

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

bogus claim of LTCG plus Rs.3.43 lakhs being the alleged commission @ 5%, paid to brokers ( entry providers ) . 5) The matter carried in appeal, has been dismissed by the Ld first appellate authority, in absence of any representation or any response to various notices issued by the Ld CIT ( A ) on at least three separate occasions ( as evident from para