SHRINGAR MARKETING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Properties Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 578/Kol/2019, order dt. 22/11/2019. 6. The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the The ld. D/R, vehemently opposed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that th assessee and submitted

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

House; 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata- 700001. 5. Thereafter, the notice u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued by the Department on 07.04.2015, asking the assessee to file correct return of its total income in respect of which the assessee was assessable for the assessment year 2009-10. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed

KAUSHALYA DEALERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

revised the assessment framed u/s 143(3) by the AO vide order passed u/s 263 dated 23.03.2020 by directing the AO to verify these issues and frame the assessment afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel of the assessee, submitted that the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 was exercised by ld PCIT

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

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property reported in TDS return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during

MAK, ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT(CEN.)-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Properties Page 4 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 928/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Limited vs. PCIT in ITA No. 130/KOL/2021 order dated 03.08.2022, where on somewhat similar facts, this issue has been decided. The critical findings deserve to be reproduced as under: “11. In the light of above, let us examine the facts of the present

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT CEN.-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Properties Page 4 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 928/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Limited vs. PCIT in ITA No. 130/KOL/2021 order dated 03.08.2022, where on somewhat similar facts, this issue has been decided. The critical findings deserve to be reproduced as under: “11. In the light of above, let us examine the facts of the present

KAUSHAL KISHORE BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-45(1), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 263 revision jurisdiction so as to hold that the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment dated 29.07.2016 was an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the ITA No.609/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Kaushal Kishore Bihani Vs ITO Wd-45(1), Kol. Page 2 Revenue. This assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, brokerage and commission. He filed

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

house property by the assessee is construction of flats or purchase of flats (which prima facie on the basis of details available on record has been found to be construction) and accordingly, all the conditions of section 54 and 54F of the Act have not been fulfilled.Therefore, assessment order passed by AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dated

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, USA,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (IT & TP), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

Properties (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was concerned with the case where the AO followed the decision of the higher authorities in an earlier assessment year while making an assessment and the Commissioner revised such order u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in a writ

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property, the Assessing Officer took a possible view on the issue. Therefore, it is not open to the Ld. Pr. CIT to substitute his own view in place of the view taken by the Assessing Officer by resorting to revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property, the Assessing Officer took a possible view on the issue. Therefore, it is not open to the Ld. Pr. CIT to substitute his own view in place of the view taken by the Assessing Officer by resorting to revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property, the Assessing Officer took a possible view on the issue. Therefore, it is not open to the Ld. Pr. CIT to substitute his own view in place of the view taken by the Assessing Officer by resorting to revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

property, the Assessing Officer took a possible view on the issue. Therefore, it is not open to the Ld. Pr. CIT to substitute his own view in place of the view taken by the Assessing Officer by resorting to revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable

ANIL KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property' and should have allowed only standard deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act amounting to 30% of Gross Annual Value. Failure to do so has rendered the assessment erroneous and failure to bring the apparent undisclosed income to the ambit of taxation has rendered the assessment prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3 AY: 2017-18 Anil Kumar

SHREE KUMAR BANGUR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property after reducing Rs.1,55,159 from the assessee’s share of gross rent of the property. The alternative submission of the assessee to allow deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act @ 30% of Rs 1,55,159 is rejected accordingly” 5. The Ld. AR also pointed out that in the assessee’s own case