ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

Section 41(l) amounting to Rs.12,97,47,322/- and disallowed bad debts of Rs.5,63,402/-. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-XX. Kolkata. In the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. C!T(A: deleted both the additions made by the AO. Against this appellate order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there 16. is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [PAN : AADCS 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 6th, 2021 Date of pronouncing the order : December 6th, 2021 ORDER

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowed while computing the total income or loss of an assessee in and the said order does not contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub- section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment cannot be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

41 taxmann.com 496 (Karn.). In the aforesaid decision it was held that mere mention of “Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)( c) initiated separately” in assessment order, does not amount to a direction under Section 271(1)( (c) for levy of penalty. The Learned AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision has considered

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

disallowance if overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for; (v) however, this would not debar an assessee from furnishing evidence to rebut the ‘prima facie’ satisfaction of the AO; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings; (vi) due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1222 To 1226/Kol/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08

disallowance if overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for; (v) however, this would not debar an assessee from furnishing evidence to rebut the ‘prima facie’ satisfaction of the AO; since penalty proceeding are not a continuation of assessment proceedings; (vi) due compliance would be required to be made in respect of the provisions

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRABIR ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkey & Dr. A. L. Saini

c) there was no agreement and as such copy and certified copy of ledger account could not be furnished. Therefore, AO took an adverse view and made the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act. 6. The next sundry creditor, namely, (iii) Sri Bimal Kumar Gupta in whose account there was outstanding liability of Rs.60 Lakhs was also issued notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2010-11 ITO Ward-12(1), बनाम / M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., 21G. Atal Sur Road, V/s. Chowringhee Squre, Tangra, Kolkata-700 015 Kolkta-700 069 [PAN No.AAECS 4167 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR अपीलाथ

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

41,190/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,42,470/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated

DAMODHAR CEMENT & SLAG LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH ACC LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA,

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,...................................Respondent Circle-6, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Appearances by: Shri Manish Sheth, A.R., for the assessee Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Department Date of concluding the hearing : October 27 , 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : December

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

41(1), Nadia,\nKrishnanagar, Nadia - 741101\n........................................................ Respondent\nAppearances by:\nAssessee represented by : P.K. Ray, Adv.\nTrideep Nayak, AR\nDepartment represented by : Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR\nDate of concluding the hearing : 24.11.2025\nDate of pronouncing the order : 01.12.2025\nORDER\nPER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\n1. In this case, there is a delay of 532 days in filing

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.: 1246, 1247, 1248 & 2037/KOL/2019\n Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16\nD.C.I.T Cir-10(1), Kolkata\nVs.\nM/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AAACE5767F\nAppearances:\nDepartment represented by\nAssessee represented by\nDate of concluding

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

C' BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.: 1246, 1247, 1248 & 2037/KOL/2019\n Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16\nD.C.I.T Cir-10(1), Kolkata\nVs.\nM/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AAACE5767F\nAppearances:\nDepartment represented by\nAssessee represented by\nDate of concluding

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

C) A reliable estimate can be made out of the obligation. If the above conditions are made, provision should be recognized in the financial statements. It is an accepted principle that the salary/wage accrued daily, weekly, monthly as per the contract of appointment. The liability of the bank to pay salary and wages at the revised rates commenced from