M/S KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

6. Consequent to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act the assessee filed appeal before ITAT vide ITA No. 1094/Kol/2014. In the meantime, the AO framed consequential assessment u/s. 263/143(3) dated 30.01.2015 determining total income at Rs.1,15,94,330/- inter alia, making ad-hoc disallowance of a sum of Rs.55,05,750/- being 75% of the Security

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

INDIA CONSTRUCTION,DIAMOND HARBOUR vs. ITO, WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 22.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.04.2021. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. I.T.A. No.: 2592/KOL/2024 Assessment Year

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the loss of Rs.59,58,100/- from trading in derivatives when contract notes were duly submitted evidencing the genuineness of the transactions 6. That on facts and in circumstances of the case, National Faceless Assessment Unit erred in adding arbitrary commission expenses of Rs.1,14,050/- when no such expense was actually incurred by the assessee. 7. That

M/S. VICTOR COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Disallowance of loss ………Rs. 6,04,477/- 5. In the instant case, the appellant is not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindicative or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to inference with the decision of the A.O. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

M/S DESERVE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2014-15 Deserve Vinimay (P) Ltd........…….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant Room No. 410 4Th Floor 48 Ezra Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadcd 5368 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1) Kolkata……….......................................…….......….……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 8Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 8Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

disallowance of Rs.4,80,26,349/- was made by him. The Assessing Officer also treated the loan amount aggregating to Rs.1,00,00,000/-, received by the assessee company during the year under consideration from three (3) parties, namely, M/s. Tapovan Dealer Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Farista Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maximum Commercial Pvt. Ltd., as not genuine

JAI MATADI ENTERPRISE,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1),, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 27.05.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16.12.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 31.05.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2017. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 565 days. An application along with an affidavit

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18, dated 31.01.2024, passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 09.12.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeals in ITA Nos. 1696 & 1697/KOL/2019 are barred by limitation by 39 days. The Revenue has filed petitions for condonation of delay which are extracted as under: 1696/KOL/2019: Dates Events/Reasons 10.04.2019 Appeal order

M/S METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 2.1. The ld. Pr. CIT, issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act on 14/03/2016 asking the assessee company to showcause why the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27/03/2015 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee gave a detailed reply. After considering this reply

DEBASISH BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 61(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Debasish Bhattacharjee.................................…………………………..................................Appellant 394/1, Neel Appartment, Kendua Main Road, Kolkata – 700 084. [Pan: Adzpb 9976 E] Ito Ward 61(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………….........Respondent 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 1St Floor, Bamboo Villa, Central Building, Kolkata – 700 014. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 11.01.2018 Passed Ex-Parte Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

disallowance of Finance charges. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the A.O. and since the explanation offered by the assessee in 2 I.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Debasish Bhattacharjee response to the show cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the A.O. imposed a penalty

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

250(4) of the Act. He submitted that even on the merits, the ld. CIT(A) had enquired into the various factors involved in the higher profitability of the eligible unit. After taking us through the explanation & details furnished in response to the enquiries made by the ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section

SHRI JOYDEEP ROY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Disallowance of excess Rs.4,94,700/- depreciation claimed on Godown 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 02.07.2024, I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 29.03.2023. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

RADHAKRISHNA AGRO PRODUCTS,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BURDWAN. , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ground nos. 1(a) to (c) relates to ex parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) without complying with the provisions of section 250(6