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

reopening of assessment, the revenue appeal in ITA No. 406/Kol/2018, for the Assessment Year 2008 No. 406/Kol/2018, for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is hereby dismissed. 09 is hereby dismissed. 10. We now take up the revenue appeal We now take up the revenue appeal in ITA No. 407/Kol/2018; Assessment in ITA No. 407/Kol/2018; Assessment Year 2012-13. The revenue

DCIT, CIR-9(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopening the assessment, which are extracted below:- “Reasons for issue of notice U/S 148 for the AY 2006-07 Return declaring total income of Rs.2,03,13,738/- computed under the normal provisions of the Act was filed on 27.11.2006. Subsequently, assessment in this case was made U/S 143(3) on 31.12.2008 at an income of Rs.16

D.C.I.T CIR - 7,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S BCH ELECTRIC LTD( FORMERLY M/S BHARTIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

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

reopening of the case by the AO is held valid and thus the other issues are being decided on merits hereunder”. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, find merit in the submissions made by the assessee challenging both the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 on account of disallowance

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VATICAN COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopened the assessment and issued a notice under section 148 after recording the reasons. In pursuance of the said notice, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 26.12.2008 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,69,53,757/- after making additions on account of disallowance

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

reopened the assessment for both the assessment years u/s 147 of the Act, by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, he completed the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 on 13/12/2018 Assessment Years: 2011 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Subodh Chandra Das determining the gross total income at Rs.11,20,501/ determining the gross total income

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

reopened the assessment for both the assessment years u/s 147 of the Act, by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, he completed the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 on 13/12/2018 Assessment Years: 2011 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Subodh Chandra Das determining the gross total income at Rs.11,20,501/ determining the gross total income

SHREE PRAKASH CHHAWACHHARIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopened, is it open for the Assessing Officer to make additions or disallowance on other issues additions or disallowance on other

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 on 14.03.2005 and in the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 vide order dated 31.03.2006, the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA was restricted by the Assessing Officer to Rs.3,51,52,890/-. In the said assessment, he also disallowed

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]

reopening of assessment is either incorrect or where reason recoded is abandoned in the course of reassessment proceedings, then as a corollary it has to be held that the key used by the AO for opening the lock was inappropriate or incorrect and thereby the lock placed earlier on the concluded assessment remained unopened and therefore the AO could

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.

reopening order and the consequent assessment. 23 7. The CIT (A) in the order dated 281h January 2011 proceeded to examine on merits the challenge by the Assessee (in Ground No. 4) to the order of the AO disallowing

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

reopened assessment by issue of notice under section 148 - Assessee contended that Assessing Officer sought to invoke section 14A to disallow

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.

reopened by the Assessing Officer only on the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Although in the assessment

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to discharge all material facts in the regular return of income filed by it. And this could be figured out only if the AO makes proper application of mind, examine the transaction

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to discharge all material facts in the regular return of income filed by it. And this could be figured out only if the AO makes proper application of mind, examine the transaction

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reopening the assessment proceedings has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to discharge all material facts in the regular return of income filed by it. And this could be figured out only if the AO makes proper application of mind, examine the transaction

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act; (b) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,25,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer by disallowing

S. K. DUDHORIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

reopening based on mere change of opinion. He, therefore, upheld the validity of the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 and also I.T.A. No. 1536/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 3 of 5 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer therein by disallowing

ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA vs. SANAT SINGHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed and the reopening of the assessment is hereby quashed being bad in law and the consequential additions stand deleted

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata................…………………………….….…….……Appellant Vs. Sanat Singha Roy……..……………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Mahishpota, Post Office-Natagarh, Kolkata-700113. [Pan: Anips0738A] Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 29, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :April 03, 2023

reopened the assessment and added the entire sale consideration as unexplained income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further examined the other transactions which were by certain other persons through assessee being real estate agent and finding discrepancies therein added the entire amounts of the transaction as unexplained income of the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A), however, held that