DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before 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) : 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

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

143(3) vide an order dated 24.12.2009, the total income as declared by the assessee company in its return of income was accepted by the A.O. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the A.O. on the basis of information received from ACIT (TDS) – II, Bhubaneshwar and a notice under section 148 was issued by him to the assessee

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

depreciation and interest, the total income of the assessee from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,72,96,81,920/- for the year under consideration in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/144 vide an order dated 22.03.2013. 5. The records of the assessment made under section 143(3)/144

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

ii) Where the reason for reassessment discloses that the AO has formed his belief on the basis of the return of income, it is nothing but a review of earlier proceedings, not permissible in view of Apex Court decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii) Recently jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Vesuvius

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 143(3) of the Act on 13.02.2006 at NIL income after set off of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation of Rs. 61,28,25,120/-. Tax was calculated at Rs. 5,568,19,678/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, order u/s 251/143(3) was passed on 07.03.2007 at NIL income after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 143(3) of the Act on 13.02.2006 at NIL income after set off of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation of Rs. 61,28,25,120/-. Tax was calculated at Rs. 5,568,19,678/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, order u/s 251/143(3) was passed on 07.03.2007 at NIL income after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation of 'Vortal' division merged into the assessee company w.e.f. 01- 03-2010 on the following grounds: i. There was no mention of the scheme of demerger pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the audited accounts of the company. ii. The assessee has not filed the return of loss in time as prescribed u/s 139(3

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues as have been raised by the Ld. PCIT in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and finally as mentioned in the revisionary order were not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings which culminated in framing of assessment u/s 143(3) read with

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation 2.Low Income Not applicable for EIIL shown by the contractor 3.Large refund Point no. 3 of our 140 claimed of advance letter 140 tax dtd.21.12.15 4.Large deduction u/s . Point no. 2 of our 136 & 137 35, 35(2AA) & letter dtd.18.11.15 and 35(2AB) point no. 2 of 08.03.16 5.High Ratio of Point no. 6 of our 138 Refund

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

ii) Share of “Revaluation Profit” Rs.37,03,36,187 (As discussed in above paras) Assesseed Total Income Rs.133,40,62,937” 12. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are not valid. It was contended that the reasons recorded did not spell out the belief of the AO regarding escapement

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

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

3 to section 147 which is\nreproduced as under. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has\nescaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the\nproceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

143(3) read with section 144C and section 144C(5) of the Act and the Directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble DRP’) dated March 4, 2022 for the said assessment year 2018-19 are contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and are liable

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

143(3) read with section 144C and section 144C(5) of the Act and the Directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble DRP’) dated March 4, 2022 for the said assessment year 2018-19 are contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and are liable

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 143(3) on 30.11.2011, wherein the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was allowed. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced

NEW TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) & (iii) of TAR]. Therefore, the profit on tea earned out of green leaf purchase and sale should have been correctly computed at below: Quantity of Green Leaf purchased X Composite income Quantity of Green leaf purchased + plucked The Ld. CIT, therefore, issued a notice under section 263 to the assessee pointing out the above errors and requiring 3

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

3. Capital Expenditure on BSNL Tower Rs. 18,04,293/- TOTAL Rs.2,07,73,479/- The amount of Rs. 2,08,52,219/- included Rs. 78,740/- received on account of sundry expenses like consultation charges etc. recovered. It is submitted that these expenses were capitalized in the accounts by the appellant and hence were recovered from the purchaser

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

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and had deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the gross total and had deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the gross total and had deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the gross total income of the assessee as well as the total income was Nil and there