RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

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

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

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

151 of the Act which states that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer without the approval of competent authority which means that sanction of the competent authority is mandatory and any notice without such sanction would be invalid. The Ld. AR thereafter referred to the penalty provisions as contained in section 271

MD MAHIMUD SK,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151 read\nwith section 144B of the Act when it did not have any power under\nany notification. First of all we shall adjudicate the additional ground\nraised in A.Y. 2015-16 which is extracted below:-\n“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAssessment Centre (NFAC) erred in having assumed jurisdiction

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. The case of the assessee is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Amiya Gopal Dutta (supra). For the sake of ready reference

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023, respectively. Since the issues in both\nthe appeals are for the same assessee, they were heard together and are\nbeing decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and\nbrevity\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023, respectively. Since the issues in both\nthe appeals are for the same assessee, they were heard together and are\nbeing decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and\nbrevity\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No.: 956/KOL/2025

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. 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 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAECR8231M Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2024 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income of ₹81,50,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the observation of the Ld. AO, the submissions of the ITA No(s). 2572/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2011-12 Narayan

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

151(1) of the Act. The notice was served on the assessee through email and speed post. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 20,400/-. Subsequently, notice U/S 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Income

M/S ABHMAN DISTRIBUTOR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3.1 The credits in the bank statement are mentioned at para 4.5 and the list furnished by the assessee is mentioned at para 6 of the order of the Ld. AO. Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the cash credits

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

151 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 from the competent authority as required under the statute and the purported action on that behalf is thoroughly opposed to law. 6. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), N.F.A.C

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

151 taxmann.com 434 (SC).The ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has not filed any objections to issuance of notice by non-jurisdictional AO, therefore he should not be allowed to rake up this issue at this stage and the ground raised may be dismissed. 09. The ld AR in the rebuttal submitted the decision

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153B (1) uses the expression "order of assessment" and not merely 'assessment'. Therefore, the assessment order becomes an order only when in fact it is communicated and therefore the communication of the order had to be prior to the end of the limitation period. In BJN Hotels Ltd. (supra) the Karnataka High Court, held as under: "That the revenue