RAJROOP DOSHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(2)\nwas issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata. Finally, the assessment was\nalso framed by the same Assessing Officer. The Id. AO vehemently\nsubmitted before us that the order passed by the Id. AO is without\njurisdiction as the ITO ward 2(3), Kolkata, was not having jurisdiction\nover the case of the assessee in term

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who is the jurisdictional AO however the assessment in this case was framed by ACIT, Circle- 1(1), Jalpaiguri . We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to ACIT and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section 127

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

u/s 127 of the Act transferring the assessment file from one to another as stated above. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Nisha Baheti; A.Y. 2015-16 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (supra) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held as under

NANDLAL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

u/s 143(2) of the Act, then he has no authority to frame the assessment. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (supra), held as under: - “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

HARSHA CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(4),KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsha Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, 1St Floor, Stephen 8(4), Kolkata. Vs. House, 4, B. B. D Bag (East), Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabch6873N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.2,64,127/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is a brief delay of three days in filing the present appeal which is condoned for adjudication of the matter. 3. Before us, none represented the assessee. On the earlier several occasions also, the case of the assessee has not been represented by 2 Harsha Consortium

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2016-17 and he was sent on an assignment to United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system and the mercantile system, there

DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN COAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system and the mercantile system, there

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 10 of 1922 Act. Again where the cash system is adopted, there is no question of bad debts or outstandings at all, in the case of mercantile system against the book profits some of the bad debts may have to be set off when they are found to be irrecoverable. Besides the cash system and the mercantile system, there

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

127,08,64,720/-. Thereafter, ld. Pr. CIT called for the assessment records and issued following show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act: “Whereas the undersigned had called for and examined the record of your case and it is considered that the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1174 & 1176/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kol- 700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 & 28.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

127 of the Act dated 16.12.2015 of the Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata. Thereafter, assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act was initiated and notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for furnishing of return of income. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished its return on 26.03.2016 declaring income to Rs.1,170/-. Subsequently. notices u/s 143(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1174 & 1176/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kol- 700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 & 28.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

127 of the Act dated 16.12.2015 of the Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata. Thereafter, assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act was initiated and notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued for furnishing of return of income. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished its return on 26.03.2016 declaring income to Rs.1,170/-. Subsequently. notices u/s 143(2

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127 DTR 241 (SC). We also note that the reasons recorded in a very mechanical and perfunctory manner and the re-opening on the said reasons cannot be sustained. We find that there was no application of mind by the AO to the information received which were vague itself and therefore the AO has simply relied on the information received

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127 DTR 241 (SC). We also note that the reasons recorded in a very mechanical and perfunctory manner and the re-opening on the said reasons cannot be sustained. We find that there was no application of mind by the AO to the information received which were vague itself and therefore the AO has simply relied on the information received

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127 DTR 241 (SC). We also note that the reasons recorded in a very mechanical and perfunctory manner and the re-opening on the said reasons cannot be sustained. We find that there was no application of mind by the AO to the information received which were vague itself and therefore the AO has simply relied on the information received

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

127 DTR 241 (SC). We also note that the reasons recorded in a very mechanical and perfunctory manner and the re-opening on the said reasons cannot be sustained. We find that there was no application of mind by the AO to the information received which were vague itself and therefore the AO has simply relied on the information received