ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BABA LOKENATH FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

133A of the Act, certain books of accounts with ID markedwere impounded. 3.1 The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny U/s 143 (2) of the Act and assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143 (3) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the computation of income for the year submitted by the assessee, along

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

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

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, and Uday Shankar Mahawar on 22/08/2014 at 12, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-71. It has been gathered through statements and findings of the survey proceedings and post survey investigation that Shri U. S. Mahawar is a bogus entry operator, who provides entry

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

depreciation of Rs. 9,04,543/- from M/s D.K. Enterprises. M/s D.K.Enterprises was claimed to be the proprietary concern of Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF). The assessee in effect admitted additional income of Rs. 9,04,543/- in the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the assessee claimed that it had made voluntary

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ALBERT DAVID LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. Albert David List P-7,Chowringhee 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacca 3933 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 30-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 06.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1338/Cit(A)-4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/15-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue Raises Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Allowing 30% Depreciation As Claimed By The Assessee Despite The Fact That The Claim Of The Assessee That It Was Manufacturing Iv Fluid Bottles & Disposable Syringe & Needles With The Help Of Plastics Moulds Identical With The Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Was Not Blocked By Any Materials Or Cogent Explanation? 2. Whether The Learned. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Technically Similar Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Were Also

133A was carried out in the case of the assessee on 16.07.2015. On the basis of the adverse findings of the survey, the assessee company agreed to offer additional income of Rs.1,43,62,640/- for the year under consideration by way of withdrawing some expenses which were not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1). The assessment, therefore

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.2010, during the course of which certain books of account and loose papers were impounded. Thereafter the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 12.10.2010, wherein profit from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was shown by the assessee

ACIT, CIR.-26(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.2010, during the course of which certain books of account and loose papers were impounded. Thereafter the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 12.10.2010, wherein profit from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was shown by the assessee

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALBERT DAVID LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-10(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………………................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. Albert David Ltd....…………………………………………………….........................Respondent 15, Chittranjan Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan: Aacca 3933 D] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 29.03.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 85,34,346/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Additional Depreciation Of Moulds. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pharmaceutical Products. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,54,94,310/-. Thereafter A Revised Return Was Filed By The Assessee On 26.03.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,86,54,770/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated

133A was carried out in the case of the assessee on 16.07.2015. On the basis of the adverse findings of the survey, the assessee company agreed to offer additional income of Rs. 1,43,62,640/- for the year under consideration by way of withdrawing some expenses which were not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1). The assessment

MANGI LAL SETHIA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05

133A was conducted in the business premises of Sri Mangilal Sethia and Sri Poonon Chand Sethia on 13/11/2006.During the course of recording the statement of Sri Poonam Chand Sethia, it is found that the two cheque of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,50,800/- were deposited on 09/09/2003 and 29/9/2003 in the name of M/s Satyam Enterprises, which were received from

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 3 | P a g e PKC Securities A.Y. 2011-12 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation and no TDS done for rent payment by the assessee. Again on third occasion, subsequent to a survey u/s. 133A(2A), proceedings were taken u/s. 201(1)/206C(7) to hold the assessee as assessee in default for non- deduction of tax at source of watch and ward expenses, professional fees and legal charges claimed by the assessee

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

133A of the Act which were also subsequently released by the investigation wing after necessary verification. In addition to the above, assets and documents, bank accounts, passports and credit cards etc were found in the name of various persons of this Group. No person or concern of the group had admitted any undisclosed income in the course of search

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

133A of the Act which were also subsequently released by the investigation wing after necessary verification. In addition to the above, assets and documents, bank accounts, passports and credit cards etc were found in the name of various persons of this Group. No person or concern of the group had admitted any undisclosed income in the course of search

M/S NORTHERN SERVICES & SUPPLY,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, `the Act`) dated 25/03/2013. 2. The brief background of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is inter-alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Poultry feeds. The assessee has also shown

M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (TDS) CIRCLE - 59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

133A of the Act i.e. the TDS survey conducted on assessee’s business premises on 13.09.2007, it was observed that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on lump sum payment made on outright purchase of music rights. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the assessee not treated as assessee in default

ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TIRUPATI COMMERCIAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1329/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tirupati Commercial [Pan: Aadft 4683 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 26.02.2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,58,325/- being the estimated net profit determined @ 3.5% of turnover

TIRUPATI MARBLES,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

section 147/143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set-aside the assessment Tirupati Marbles order with directions to pass fresh assessment order after examining the evidence and documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly notices u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act with detailed questionnaire were issued and in response