DCIT,CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Capital gains" but the assessee did not file the return. Pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed his return in the status of individual. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment treating the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family as against individual. This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Capital gains" but the assessee did not file the return. Pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee filed his return in the status of individual. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment treating the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family as against individual. This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain of Rs. 1,09,35,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, however the same was held to be validly done by the AO. 5. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

292B. [Para 5] Section 116 also defines the Income-tax authorities as different and authorities as different and distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

292B. [Para 5] Section 116 also defines the Income-tax authorities as different and authorities as different and distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with

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.

gains of business, the break-up of Rs.26.69 cr and the reasons as to why the assessee is eligible to claim the same was submitted as follows: Particulars Rs. in Remarks crores Extraordinary Item 26.69 Claim not received from the debited in profit and Insurance Company debited in profit Loss A/c (a) and Loss A/c, being loss incurred

MR. ASHWIN KR. TULSIDAS & JAYANT KR. TULSIDAS,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Ashwin Kr. Tulsidas & Jayant Kr. Tulsidas……............…………………………………….…..Appellant Executor To The Estate Of Latetulsidas Khatau C/O Jethabhai Khatau & Co. 176, Jamnalal Bajaj Street Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaaba 0406 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(1), Kolkata………………….............................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

292B states that no notice assessment or other proceeding can be invalid if the same is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent of the purpose. Similarly as per section 292BB any notice issued will be deemed to be valid if all has complied with the same and no objection was raised during the assessment

M/S. CYGNUS INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

292B. [Para 5] Section 116 also defines the Income-tax authorities as different and distinct Authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with law as per the powers given to them in the specified circumstances. If powers conferred on a particular authority are arrogated by other authority without mandate of law, it will create

AJAY GOEL, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MANJU GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

capital gain as unexplained income by wrongly invoking the provision of sec. 68 of the Act. 5. I have heard both the sides. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the notice under section 148 of 3 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir of Late Manju Goel

SMT.SUSHMA TANDON,DELHI vs. ITO,WD- 45(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain and other sources at Rs.4,04,950/- declared in the return for Assessment Year 2003-04 filed on 30/07/2003. Thereafter, assessment proceedings were carried out u/s 143(3)(ii) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and income assessed at Rs.27,55,950/- vide order dt. 30/12/2010. Penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s 274 was issued on 30/12/2010 followed

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 has deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order