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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

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

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

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

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

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]

section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment null & void in law, which is validly initiated u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act as notice u/s. 148 was issued after taking necessary approval from

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

143(3) of the Act. 4. The said order of the AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after taking into account the contentions and submissions of the assessee enhanced the income after issuing notice u/s 251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

143(3) of the Act. 4. The said order of the AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after taking into account the contentions and submissions of the assessee enhanced the income after issuing notice u/s 251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business

MAA PAHARI MERCANTILES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.359/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Maa Pahari Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.………………………….…....Appellant 9, Weston Street, 214, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aabcm7545A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata……..................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26,2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That Assessment Order Itself Bad In Law In View Of The Fact That The Notice U/S 143(2) Taking Up The Case Under Scrutiny Was Without Jurisdiction.

disallowing Rs. 139,250/- u/s 14A of the income tax act, 1961 in spite of the fact that the assessee had no exempt income. 11. For that the order of the AO be modified and the assessee be given relief prayed for. 12. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal

ALPHA NATIONAL TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.686/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Alpha National Trading Co….………………………………….…....Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aatfa1401A] Vs. Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata………..................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of A Sum Of Rs. 29,30,046/- Out Of

Disallowance of a sum of Rs. 5,86,988/- out of Rs.17,60,993/- being one third of Public Relation Expenses made by Ld. ACIT, Circle 29, Kolkata on the alleged ground of personal use. 3. For that the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend the above grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2013, the Assessing Officer worked out such expenses by applying Rule 8D at Rs.36,60,39,331/- and disallowance to that extent was made by him under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of this

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2013, the Assessing Officer worked out such expenses by applying Rule 8D at Rs.36,60,39,331/- and disallowance to that extent was made by him under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of this

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowance was based on the information received from the Forward Markets Commissions(FMC) through I&CI wing that the assessee company had taken accommodation entries in form of bogus losses through NMCE and the same was independently adjudicated. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHREE SHOPPERS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowances were also made and income assessed at Rs.6,43,81,300/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act and also challenged the legality of the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the legal issue but on merits partly

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

2% u/s 194C whereas as a matter of fact, TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction

M/S. PINNACCLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SODEPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2). 12. Regular assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93 under section 143(3) has been completed disallowing