VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 11. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the second reassessment order dated 30.09.2019. Before adverting to the show-cause notice issued under section 263, we deem it appropriate to take

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 963 days and admit this appeal for adjudication. 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T.-2, Kolkata erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in order to impose his own views

BHARAT TIRTHA RICE MILL,BURDWAN EAST vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for passing a fresh assessment order. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. PCIT was wholly unjustified in setting aside the order passed by the AO u/s 263/143(3) dt. 30.12.2016 holding the said order

PANJIT BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and adjudicate the issue in the following paras. 3. The issue raised in the first ground of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') wherein Ld. AO has made addition over stepping and going beyond his jurisdiction on the ground that the case was selected

ROHTANG COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. The issue raised in the 1st ground of appeal of the assessee is that the order passed 4. u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is bad in law 2 Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2017-18 whereby the assessment which is otherwise invalid

AC CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoning the delay. 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and does not need any specific adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No.374/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 AC Construction 4. Issue raised in ground no. 3 and 4 are not pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 5. Issue raised in ground

FACIT SALES(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Kolkata invokes the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and issued following show-cause notice to the assessee which is extracted for ready reference: “Related to the. Assessment year 2010-2011, your case was completed u/s. 147/143

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment order dated 30th November, 2018 passed

M/S ROY AND SAHANI COMPANY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of the appeal:- “1. For that the Ld PCIT erred in holding that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of no enquiry when there was no lack of enquiry

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. Principal CIT erred in exercising the power of revision for the purpose of directing the A.O. to hold another investigation when the A.O. had complied with the directions of the predecessor

SAHEBGANJ NO.1 ANCHALIK SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and decide this appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal, which contains pleadings on general points also, namely that assessee may be given liberty to modify the grounds etc. In brief the sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in exercising the powers under section

KGVK AGRO LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-2., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal. Its grievance is that ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order with a direction that disallowance of loss to the extent of Rs.67

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay ad admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 1 and 2 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee in beginning is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made in Ground

BHIRINGHEE MINING & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT - BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 29.11.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the order made by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') is illegal, invalid

M/S HARISH CHANDRA BALDEWA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-46(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.366/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Harish Chandra Baldewa ………. Appellant 493/B/17, Vikram Vihar, G.T. Road (South) Shibpur Howrah-711102 (Pan: Alipb4249H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax-16, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 04.03.2020. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing of the instant appeal and admit it for adjudication. 4. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial

PARASHNATH INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2 grossly erred in setting aside the assessment dated 18.12.2018. 2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit appeal admitted. 3. The assessee is company and is in the business of investments in shares and securities and financing activities and derives rental income. The short point 2 I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Central Business Services Ltd for our adjudication is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was right