APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowed and added Back to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment completed appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in accordance with the provisions of Section

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

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

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

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

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

142 ITR 493 (Kol.). 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee then referred to the provisions of section 194G and section 204 and submitted that as per clause(iii) of section 204- ‘person responsible for paying’ ‘winnings from lottery or crossword puzzle’ under section 194B and commission etc. on sale of lottery tickets under section 194G is the payer himself

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 you have stated that you have claimed deduction amounting to Rs. 32,31,576/- under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act 1961 But on examination of the materials on record it is noticed that you have deposited/invested in Bank other than co-operative Bank and earned interest income amounting

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]

disallowance of rent upto Rs.2,16,000/- as against Rs. 11,82,000/- without appreciating the observation of the A.O. 5) That the appellant craves leave to add modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal and/ or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2 Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2010-11 2

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

142(1) and proceeding with the assessment without issue and service of the mandatory notice U/S 143(2) of the Act and further that the revision of section 292BB of the Act was not applicable in this case. The order U/S 143(3) being illegal and void abinitio is liable to be quashed/ cancelled. 5. Without prejudice

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

142(1) and proceeding with the assessment without issue and service of the mandatory notice U/S 143(2) of the Act and further that the revision of section 292BB of the Act was not applicable in this case. The order U/S 143(3) being illegal and void abinitio is liable to be quashed/ cancelled. 5. Without prejudice

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2)(x) on acquisition of leasehold land & building; (ii) Disallowance of expenditure on scientific research u/s 35(1)(i) of the Act; (iii)Disallowance of claim u/s 43B in relation to reversal or write back of provision for liabilities; (iv) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA; (v) Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

disallowance / addition in issue. This assessment order suggests in para-2 that the Assessing Officer had nowhere issued sec. 143(2) notice during this assessment. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side during the course of hearing. I find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in GA No.3671 of 2015 ITAT

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

142(1), with reference to the original return of income, continue to be valid and such legal proceedings will have to be taken to their logical conclusion. There is nothing in law which states that the pending proceedings, in respect of the original return, shall abate or will automatically get invalidated with the filing of the revised return

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee and the assessee filed the copies of audited accounts, ITRs, bank statements, etc before the AO during the reassessment proceedings which were initiated by the ld. Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 AO u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice