BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P of the I.T. Act. Thus, the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.32,79,394/- is disallowed and added to the Total Income treating the same as "other income" u/s. 56 of the 1.T Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A

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

section 270A for under reporting of income, in respect of this disallowance, cannot be sustained. iii) Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

2,66,40,000/- paid to Managing Director. In this respect, the Ld. AR read out from the written submissions which deserve to be extracted for reference as under: “5.6 After considering the submissions of the appellant the Hon'ble DRP directed the Assessing Officer as follows:- "The submissions have been perused. The AO has referred to purported violation

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

2,66,40,000/- paid to Managing Director. In this respect, the Ld. AR read out from the written submissions which deserve to be extracted for reference as under: “5.6 After considering the submissions of the appellant the Hon'ble DRP directed the Assessing Officer as follows:- "The submissions have been perused. The AO has referred to purported violation

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed and added back to the total income. Also, penalty proceeding u/s 270A was initiated for underreporting of income. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee raised its objection on this issue before the Hon'ble DRP. The Hon'ble DRP- 2, New Delhi vide order u/s 144C(5) dated 11.06.2024 as aforesaid has rejected the objections of the assessee

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 2803/KOL/2025: “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 2803/KOL/2025: “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No.: 2803/KOL/2025: “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in sustaining the Penalty of Rs. 11,52,05,880 levied u/s 270A in respect of the disallowance made of the expenditure in excess of limit prescribed under

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPORE

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2) under Chapter VI-A. Page 4 of 17 I.T.A. Nos.: 76 & 77/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Gopmahal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. The relevant portion of the Circular No.37 2016 dated 02 11 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, relating to the subject Chapter

GOPMAHAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 38, MIDNAPUR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2) under Chapter VI-A. Page 4 of 17 I.T.A. Nos.: 76 & 77/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Gopmahal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. The relevant portion of the Circular No.37 2016 dated 02 11 2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, relating to the subject Chapter

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 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 Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

disallowance of a claim or addition to income does not automatically imply concealment or misreporting of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer's initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A without clear evidence of intent to evade tax is legally unsustainable. • Case Law: CIT v. Nath Bros. Exirn International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del): The Delhi High Court ruled that

LINKPOINT INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

270A of the Act for penalty proceedings. It was found that the email was lying in the junk folder ITA No.: 1477/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Linkpoint Infrastructure Private Limited. rather than in the inbox and has filed the appeal and has requested the Bench to condone the delay. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

section 270A of the Act. Ground 18: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 3. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal for both the Assessment

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

section 270A of the Act. Ground 18: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 3. In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal for both the Assessment

ST. PETER SCHOOL,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 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 Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

2) of the Act was issued. During the scrutiny proceeding, it was observed that assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.31,56,450/- on assets for which the cost had already been treated an application of income in the earlier years. The Ld. AO disallowed the depreciation claimed citing the provisions of sec. 11(6) of the Act, which disallows depreciation

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

270A sub section 1 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the records and Anita Basak; A.Y. 2018-19 therefore, the ld. AO was not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the accounts. Accordingly, the books of accounts were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and the income of the assessee was estimated

RISHI F.L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2018-19 Rishi F.L. On Shop, Income Tax Officer, 41/1, K.N. Road, Ranibagan, Vs Ward – 42(2), Murshidabad - 742101 Murshidabad-742101 (Pan: Aahfr9315E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAMBOO VILLA, CALCUTTA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

section 270A of the Act, 3 Raghvendra Singh 1961 for under reporting of income. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “On perusal of facts on record as brought out by AO in the assessment order, it is clearly noticeable