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

149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the 7 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions filed by the appellant

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

149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the 7 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions filed by the appellant

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 |

disallowing the entire purchase amount and to restrict it to Rs. 27,73,218/-? Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in ignoring the judicial principles laid down in the matter of N.K. Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT (84txman.com 195) (SC). That the appellant craves leave to add any new ground or alter

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 |

disallowing the entire purchase amount and to restrict it to Rs. 27,73,218/-? Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in ignoring the judicial principles laid down in the matter of N.K. Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT (84txman.com 195) (SC). That the appellant craves leave to add any new ground or alter

M.A. FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

1. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.5,18,51,321/-. u/s. 69A of the Act. 2. Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head of salary and wages of Rs.51,15,500/-. 3. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.85,55,000 u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before

SUMITA ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 48(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

1. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.5,18,51,321/-. u/s. 69A of the Act. 2. Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head of salary and wages of Rs.51,15,500/-. 3. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.85,55,000 u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before

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

disallowance is governed as per the provisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management services and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision enumerated in section 14A.\" 7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\ncannot be applied u/s 115JB of the Act and the provisions of section\n14A are restricted

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\ncannot be applied u/s 115JB of the Act and the provisions of section\n14A are restricted

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\nPage 31\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\nPage | 32\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\nPage 32\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 803/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income Amicus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata Vs 6th Floor 51, Nalini Seth Road Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AACCA5183A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana

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

b) and\n2(c) of the assessee are dismissed.\n5.9. As regards the issue in relation to section 115JB, the ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal\nsubmitted that disallowance computed as per Rule 8D of the Rules\ncannot be applied u/s 115JB of the Act and the provisions of section\n14A are restricted

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) by referring to non-availability of incriminating material for the addition/disallowance made in the said assessment. The said proposition of the Ld. Counsel is rejected at the threshold because the impugned assessment year is an abated assessment year as already observed and held while disposing the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 785/Kol/2018, dealt above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

149 taxman.com 181 (Kol). It is seen that the case relied on is based on the facts peculiar to the issue under consideration before the Hon’ble Bench. However, regarding the issue of the kind of “satisfaction” that is acceptable for triggering this section, the same has been elaborately explained in the case of FL Smidth (P) Ltd. reported

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

149(1)(b) of the Act, constitutes a jurisdictional error on the part of the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Aparna Agency (P.) Ltd.1 to contend that the provisions of section 192(B) of the Act do not provide

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 641, 650 & 660/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. Appearances by: Sh. N.S. Saini, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT(DR) and Smt. Ranu Biswash, D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 23rd

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 641, 650 & 660/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. Appearances by: Sh. N.S. Saini, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT(DR) and Smt. Ranu Biswash, D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 23rd