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

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of the appellant has been considered. I have gone through the facts and found that the proceedings against appellant were opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining approval from the competent authority. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued the notice

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

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of the appellant has been considered. I have gone through the facts and found that the proceedings against appellant were opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining approval from the competent authority. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued the notice

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:

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 the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non-compliance

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:

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 the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non-compliance

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

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

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

disallowed despite the fact that the assessee has filed ample evidence in the form of agreement with the tenant etc. form of agreement with the tenant etc. He argued that this expenditure i He argued that this expenditure is in the revenue field and has to be allowed as it has not been doubted by the revenue. field

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

disallowed despite the fact that the assessee has filed ample evidence in the form of agreement with the tenant etc. form of agreement with the tenant etc. He argued that this expenditure i He argued that this expenditure is in the revenue field and has to be allowed as it has not been doubted by the revenue. field

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance was made. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2011-12 u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 and after looking into the matter, AO noted that 2 Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no undisclosed income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

DIDU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

151 taxmann.com 201 (Kolkata-Trib.) dated 13-02-2023 wherein it has been held that provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D does not find place in clause (f) of Sec. 115JB, and thus the disallowance

SHRI JYOTI MOHAN MALL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOL - XV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2003-04

disallowances to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act opined that the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3)/153C of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the non-examination by the AO of certain aspects as detailed under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRAKASH PLY CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiit(Ss)A No.24-25/Kol/2017 &

151 (Mum.) has held, inter alia, that having done original assessment u/s 143(3), if no incriminating material is found during the course of search, then it is permissible to make any addition in the assessment under section 153A pursuant to search action. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRAKASH PLY CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiit(Ss)A No.24-25/Kol/2017 &

151 (Mum.) has held, inter alia, that having done original assessment u/s 143(3), if no incriminating material is found during the course of search, then it is permissible to make any addition in the assessment under section 153A pursuant to search action. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim of the A.Ys. 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 M/s. Coal India Limited assessee for set off of brought forward business loss against the said interest income. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessment

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim of the A.Ys. 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 M/s. Coal India Limited assessee for set off of brought forward business loss against the said interest income. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessment