JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various dates Rs.14,04,700/- more in a saving bank account 3. Deposit in Cash aggregating On various dates Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00/- or more, with a Banking company 4. Purchase of immovable property On various dates Rs.1

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

290 (Bom.)(HC).\n17.\nIn the case of ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co (2010) 328 ITR\n515 (SC) wherein it was held that the opinion of DVO per se is\nnot an information for the purpose of reopening assessment\nunder section 147 of the Act.\n18.\nWhether where Assessing Officer has merely issued a\nreassessment notice on basis of intimation

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2. First we take up ITA No. 466/Kol/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 54,20,47,250/- and book profit of Rs. 50,26,02,831/- u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequent to it intimation

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2. First we take up ITA No. 466/Kol/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 54,20,47,250/- and book profit of Rs. 50,26,02,831/- u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequent to it intimation

SWAPAN BHTTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

290/-. Subsequently, the appellant filed the revised return on 30/03/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,23,86,630/-. The revised return was selected for scrutiny and the AO held that the credit of FTC amounting to Rs. 2,07,098/- cannot be allowed to the appellant, since, the appellant filed form 67 on 15/03/2019 which is beyond

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

290/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,65,88,45,310/-. It was processed on 13.11.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act at total income of Rs. 2,68,05,34,260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

290/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,65,88,45,310/-. It was processed on 13.11.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act at total income of Rs. 2,68,05,34,260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

290/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,65,88,45,310/-. It was processed on 13.11.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act at total income of Rs. 2,68,05,34,260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

290/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,65,88,45,310/-. It was processed on 13.11.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act at total income of Rs. 2,68,05,34,260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

290/-. Further, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,65,88,45,310/-. It was processed on 13.11.2019 u/s 143(1) of the Act at total income of Rs. 2,68,05,34,260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

290/- (being the assessed income in the first-round proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act). The Ld. DR took us through the financials of some of the share subscribers as depicted at page 6 of the impugned order (ITA No. 2219/Kol/2024). This may be reproduced here for illustration: Name Total Share Capital Amount Amount Raised disallowed allowed Ratan Fashion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

290/- (being the assessed income in the first-round proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act). The Ld. DR took us through the financials of some of the share subscribers as depicted at page 6 of the impugned order (ITA No. 2219/Kol/2024). This may be reproduced here for illustration: Name Total Share Capital Amount Amount Raised disallowed allowed Ratan Fashion

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

gains or losses. The ld. AO also referred to a report published by the Directorate of Income tax Mumbai, which listed UIL as a penny stock scrip to arrange bogus LTCG/ loss. The ld. AO therefore held that the loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred on shares of UIL was not genuine and therefore added the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

IFB AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the disallowance and addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of 2 I.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 IFB Automotive Private Limited

M/S. BHUMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

capital gains. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected this additional ground, along with other grounds and essentially upheld the order of ld. AO. 2.2. Aggrieved with this action of ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us with the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as well