EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.02.2022, through which the following additions (as are relevant for this adjudication) were made: I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited (i) TP Adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee (hereafter CG) of Rs. 63,57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.02.2022, through which the following additions (as are relevant for this adjudication) were made: I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited (i) TP Adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee (hereafter CG) of Rs. 63,57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on facts

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on facts

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 144B of the Act on 08.09.2022, wherein total income was determined at Rs. 1,61,28,130/- after making additions/disallowance of (i) sum of Rs. 5,41,897/- disallowed

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

disallowance of education cess of ₹6,03,51,771/-. The Ld. AO thus assessed the total income at ₹637,75,02,388/-. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that once the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is passed, the order u/s 143(1) of the Act gets merged with the order

HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed carry forward of loss to the extent of Rs.2,90,25,681/- vide its Assessment Order dated 27.09.2021 under Section 147 read with Section 144B

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

section 144B of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2022. Hence, although no addition was made on account of the reasons for which the case was selected under scrutiny, however, the disallowances

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

144B of the Act, the purported action of the Learned CIT (Appeals) in upholding the addition, to the extent of Rs. 27,73,218/-, under Section 69C of the Act is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal and hence all proceedings in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed and/or set aside. XII. FOR THAT the entire assessment was completed

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

144B of the Act, the purported action of the Learned CIT (Appeals) in upholding the addition, to the extent of Rs. 27,73,218/-, under Section 69C of the Act is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal and hence all proceedings in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed and/or set aside. XII. FOR THAT the entire assessment was completed

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 06.09.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, "CIT(A)") erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and such purported

GAZNA SAMABAYA KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LTD,NADIA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 144B of the Act dated 23.02.2022 wherein no disallowance has been made. Accordingly accepting the request of the assessee

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

144B or an order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in performance of the functions of an Income-tax Officer conferred on or assigned to him under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 125 or under sub-section (1) of section 125A shall be regarded as an order passed by the Income

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 24.07.2024, which has been passed as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dated 11.06.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Order

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B read with Sections 148 and 151A, requiring issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, whereas the impugned notice was wrongly issued by the Jurisdictional AO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata. 2. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of ITA No.: 1936/KOL/2025 Assessment Year

KANCHAN VANIJYA PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.03.2022 for AY 2016-17. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

disallowed some portion for which I am attaching a chart for anomalies made by the Ld. AO in his Order u/s 147. 5. The reassessment has been done on the basis of borrowed information as provided by Inv. Wing but the Ld. AO has no applied his mind independently by acting on the own information i.e. by making any enquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

disallowed some portion for which I am attaching a chart for anomalies made by the Ld. AO in his Order u/s 147. 5. The reassessment has been done on the basis of borrowed information as provided by Inv. Wing but the Ld. AO has no applied his mind independently by acting on the own information i.e. by making any enquiry