BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

carry forward loss set off of brought forward losses an amounting to Rs.2,05,51,01,000/- which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that on the facts of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- under head "provision for fraud" which

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

loss has not claimed as a carry forward. There is no impact on taxation. It is just an academic exercise undertaken by the ld. Assessing Officer. Had the ld. Assessing Officer verified subsequent return, then, he would have dropped the proceedings. On going through all these aspects, we are of the view that reopening is not sustainable. We quash

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

forward loss of Rs. 1,85,000/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income was also raised. The petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was also filed along with the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner had engaged a tax consultant to take care of the income tax proceedings

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

L & T FINANCE LIMITED [SUCCESSOR OF L & T FINCORP LIMITED, NOW MERGED],KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5(1),KOL , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 L&T Finance Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of (Successor Of L&T Fincorp Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Limited, Now Merged) Vs. Kolkata 15Th Floor, Ps Srijan Tech Park, Plot No. 52, Block Dn, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss on hedging contract amounting to Rs.97,86,948/-. This reassessment was completed vide order dated 30.03.2013. Against this reassessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.2. Case of the assessee was again reopened vide notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2015. These reassessment proceedings were initiated in respect of claim of carry forward

WESTERN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 9, KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the AO disregarded our submissions and passed an order based solely on findings of the Ld. PCIT under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 on 31st March 2025. In this order, the AO made an unwarranted addition by arbitrarily applying a predetermined percentage to a purported figure of suppressed sales to arrive at the assessed loss. This

PARASHNATH INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings in the instant case were only on the issue of taking accommodation entry towards bogus loss on currency derivatives and ld. AO has called for the details from the assessee to examine the said issue and after conducting the necessary enquiry has not made any addition on this issue. 12. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

reassessment and second time during the present assessment. The information were to be verified by the AO. It is trite law that an assessment has to be based on materials on records. Even if the AO disbelieves the evidences adduced by the assessee, in the absence of any contrary material on record no addition can be made. AO assessed

SATABDI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(2) Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shanti Pally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs8130L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount of Rs. 1.55,316 from the assessment for the assessment year 1993-94. Since the appeal succeeds on the merits of the assessee

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.12.2019 as well as at the time of completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and, therefore, the credit for Foreign Taxes paid in the USA should have been allowed. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the case of Rahul Anand vs. ADIT

VIVEK TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURI, SURI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.12.2019 as well as at the time of completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and, therefore, the credit for Foreign Taxes paid in the USA should have been allowed. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the case of Rahul Anand vs. ADIT

SWAPAN BHTTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.12.2019 as well as at the time of completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on I.T.A. No.: 242/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swapan Bhttacharya. 27.12.2019 and, therefore, the credit for Foreign Taxes paid in the USA should have been allowed. Reliance was placed

REDLILY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2236/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Limited,…..………Appellant 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 167, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr2177D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

loss of Rs.2,83,048/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.01.2016 determining the total income at Rs.32,54,270/- on account of addition of Rs.35,27,322/- under section 14A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Loss Account along with R.O.I and hence the cash deposits are unsubstantiated. ii) Assessee was remaining mostly out of India. iii) Assessee did not satisfactorily prove cash deposits were out of cash balance and withdrawals from banks. The appellant duly submitted before the concerned authorities [i.e. AO & CIT(A)] that - i) Assessee was a non-resident. Assessee was not carrying