ONKAR SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGICAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

1) of the Act, according to the Ld. CIT(E) the exemption under section 11 of the Act was not available to the assessee. The AO failed to consider this issue in the assessment order and had allowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the AO was found to be erroneous

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

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

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 06.09.2019 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and hence the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and subsequently setting aside the order under section

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

disallowance of preliminary expenses amounting to Rs.18,634/-. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and framed order dt. 02/12/2015 holding that the assessment order dt. 14/03/2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. 4 revenue

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

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

1 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Graphite India Limited of Income Tax-4, Kolkata dated 13h February, 2019 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Though the assessee has taken ten grounds of appeal, but in brief, its grievance is that the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income

C & E LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 C&E Limited Principal Commissioner Of 95, Park Street, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Income-Tax, Kolkata-4. Kolkata-700016. (Pan: Aaccc5418K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263(1) in accordance with the Explanation 2(c) whereas he has not mentioned anywhere in the order the deficiency of the AO. 8. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact by forming opinion that order passed by AO is erroneous and at the same time he sets aside the order

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

263-264/K/ 2020 [C.0. 425/K/21] [A.Ys 2014-15 & 2015-16] and AO may kindly be directed to allow such depreciation accordingly. 6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in holding charging of interest u/s 234C as consequential since such interest is chargeable on returned income only

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

263-264/K/ 2020 [C.0. 425/K/21] [A.Ys 2014-15 & 2015-16] and AO may kindly be directed to allow such depreciation accordingly. 6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in holding charging of interest u/s 234C as consequential since such interest is chargeable on returned income only

M/S MERINO PANEL PRODUCTS 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, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

M/S MERINO INDUSTRIES 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, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1,90,76,680/- by invoking his power of enhancement is bad in law. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.09.2013 declaring total income at NIL. The assessee the Indian Chamber of Commerce (in short ICC) is an association of industrialist, being a company registered u/s 25 of Companies Act as non-profit

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1,90,76,680/- by invoking his power of enhancement is bad in law. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.09.2013 declaring total income at NIL. The assessee the Indian Chamber of Commerce (in short ICC) is an association of industrialist, being a company registered u/s 25 of Companies Act as non-profit

ORTEM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

263 of the Act pointing out the following issues and alleging them to have remained to be examined and enquired by ld. AO which are incorporated in para 2.1 of the impugned order which reads as under: “2.1. On examination of the assessment records, Books of accounts and Tax Audit Report (SI.No. 20(b) of Form 3CD) for the year

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

disallowed the expenses of Rs.1,00,750/- and assessed the income at Rs.1,17,690/-. 4. Subsequently ld. CIT called for the assessment records and noticed that the ld. Assessing Officer has not examined the transactions of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year and thus assumed jurisdiction under section 263

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]

263 of the Act is also invalid. 3. Facts in brief are that assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 11.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs.6,04,635/-. The return was originally processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis

JAI SALASAR BALAJI INDUSTRIES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

disallowed. 8. Before proceeding to examine the issues stated above, we find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the 6 I.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. issue raised before us, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section which reads as under: "263(1

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the order made by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') is illegal, invalid and not sustainable in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Pr. CIT grossly

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 263 of the Act and vide order dated 17.10.2016 held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since ld. AO has not carried out proper examination of books of accounts including bank accounts of the assessee as well as investors and also directed ld. AO to examine the credits appearing in the books