BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.03.2023, and the expenditure claimed was required to be disallowed. Therefore, a sum of ₹ 17,03,551/- to be disallowed

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

147 notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148, the prerequisite is there should be a valid notice. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the notice was held to be not sustainable. If that be so, the Assessing Officer cannot be stated to be empowered

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act and secondly on merits changing the disallowance of loss of Rs.29,90,203/- incurred on account

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act and added back to the book profit for computation of book profit u/s.H5JB.\" In this regard the appellant has submitted that \"The Assessing Officer merely relied on Instruction No. 3/2010 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and proceeded to disallow the mark to market provision. It is submitted that in order

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

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.

disallowed the sum of Rs.21.69 crores (Rs.26.69 cr - Rs.5 Cr) claimed by the assessee under the head Business Income in his order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 31-03-2022. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee before the learned

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.

section 147 of the IT Act'1961.” 10. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed before us. The assessee has raised common legal issue challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. We notice that assessee a private limited company is engaged in the business

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.

section 147 of the IT Act'1961.” 10. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed before us. The assessee has raised common legal issue challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. We notice that assessee a private limited company is engaged in the business

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.

section 147 of the IT Act'1961.” 10. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed before us. The assessee has raised common legal issue challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. We notice that assessee a private limited company is engaged in the business

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

147 by\nissuing a notice under Section 148 merely because of the fact that now the\nassessing officer is of the view that the deduction under Section 10-A was\nallowed in excess, was based on nothing but a change of opinion on the\nsame facts and circumstances which were already in his knowledge even\nduring the original assessment proceedings

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act\nand added back to the book profit for computation of book profit u/s.H5JB.\"\nIn this regard the appellant has submitted that \"The Assessing Officer\nmerely relied on Instruction No. 3/2010 issued by Central Board of Direct\nTaxes (CBDT) and proceeded to disallow the mark to market provision.\nIt is submitted that in order

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act\nand added back to the book profit for computation of book profit u/s.H5JB.\"\nIn this regard the appellant has submitted that \"The Assessing Officer\nmerely relied on Instruction No. 3/2010 issued by Central Board of Direct\nTaxes (CBDT) and proceeded to disallow the mark to market provision.\nIt is submitted that in order

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

147 was totally baseless. (2) That in the original assessment order passed by Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2) Purulia under section 143(3) did not mention that the loss assessed will be carried forward. A copy of the order of assessment, the assessee also did not claim carry forward of loss in the I. T. Return for the Assessment

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

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

disallowance of expenses relatable to the exempt income may not be calculated as per provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rule, 1962. The A/R of the assessee company vide his letter dated 23-07-2014 has explained that:……… The reply of the assessee company is duly considered. The facts of the case law cited above

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

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

disallowance of expenses relatable to the exempt income may not be calculated as per provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rule, 1962. The A/R of the assessee company vide his letter dated 23-07-2014 has explained that:……… The reply of the assessee company is duly considered. The facts of the case law cited above

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the transactions are genuine and the payee has accounted for the income, especially where the failure to deduct TDS is due to a bona fide belief or technical lapse. Penalty/Disallowance cannot be imposed where the failure to deduct TDS resulted from a bona fide belief, technical issue, or issue under

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the transactions are genuine and the payee has accounted for the income, especially where the failure to deduct TDS is due to a bona fide belief or technical lapse. Penalty/Disallowance cannot be imposed where the failure to deduct TDS resulted from a bona fide belief, technical issue, or issue under