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. 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

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed under section 143(3). [Para 16] It followed that the effective and operative order was the one under section 143(3) and, therefore, the question of seeking rectification of the order under section 143(1)(a) could never arise. [Para 18] For the aforesaid reasons, the notices under section 154 seeking to rectify the intimation under section 143

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowed under section 143(3). [Para 16] It followed that the effective and operative order was the one under section 143(3) and, therefore, the question of seeking rectification of the order under section 143(1)(a) could never arise. [Para 18] For the aforesaid reasons, the notices under section 154 seeking to rectify the intimation under section 143

KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

143(3) determining the income of at Rs.2,19,26,760/-, interalia making a disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, for the reason that the assessee made cash payments for hiring trucks beyond the limits prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. Before the ld. First Appellate Authority , he contended that

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee for provision towards warranty expenses amounting to Rs.17,66,700/- and set off of brought forward loss of amalgamating company amounting to Rs.78,83,300/-. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,48,59,800/- in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 28.12.2016. 3. The records of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act subsequently came

BINOD KUMAR MAHATO ,BURDWAN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - BURDWAN , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2014 after making Act vide order dated 29.03.2014 after making certain additions/ disallowances to the certain additions/ disallowances to the total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain total income

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

143(3) read with section 147 is liable to be cancelled being bad in law, the other issues raised in the appeal of the assessee as well as in the appeal of the Revenue relating to the additions/ disallowances made in the said assessment have become infructuous and we do not consider it necessary or expedient to adjudicate upon

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1)(ii

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) computing total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,04,758.80 paisa inter alia, disallowing an amount of Rs. 16,26,104/- u/s 40A(3) of S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 the Act and also disallowing the claim of bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 15,62,369/- and also sadding an amount

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) computing total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,04,758.80 paisa inter alia, disallowing an amount of Rs. 16,26,104/- u/s 40A(3) of S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 the Act and also disallowing the claim of bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 15,62,369/- and also sadding an amount

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2017 making addition of ₹3,14,43,700/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) simply confirmed the order of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving a cryptic finding in Para no.6.10

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2017 making addition of ₹3,14,43,700/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) simply confirmed the order of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving a cryptic finding in Para no.6.10

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. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance made in the original assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to 15 M/s Indian Roadways Corporation

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

disallowing claims under Chapter VIA of the Act, which includes claim under Section 80P of the Act; was legislated w.e.f. 01.04.2021. He also contended that the present appeal pertains to assessment year 2019-20, and therefore, the aforesaid amendment which is effective from 01.04.2021 does not have any application for the present case. He further submitted that, therefore, Section 80AC

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1)(ii

ABHILASH TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assesese has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 35(1)(ii