DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\nFacts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

reassessment was done by the ld. AO on the ground that consultancy fee of ₹ 1,05,500/- was not included in the return of income and thus has escaped assessment. The ld AR submitted that, however, the ld. AO by applying the explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act called upon the assessee to explain the share capital/ share

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was initiated based on alleged information that the appellant received accommodation entries of ₹91,00,000 from M/s Shree Shyam Trading Company (Prop. Satya Narayan More, PAN: CRHPM0358P). The appellant submitted complete documentation including ledger, sale invoices, confirmations, and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 4. That, without prejudice, the assessment order dated 31st March

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice. 9. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice on issues that were different from those mentioned in the reasons recorded, thereby violating the procedural requirements of the Income

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice. 9. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice on issues that were different from those mentioned in the reasons recorded, thereby violating the procedural requirements of the Income

VERTEX DEVELOPERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1974/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vertex Developers,……………………..…………Appellant Bd-150, Samarpally, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 [Pan:Aajfv8233F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata,/ Asst. Unit, Nfac, Office Of The Ito, Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001

natural justice in to the matter. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the (4) learned CIT (Appeals) [NFAC] erred in confirming the addition of Authority below of an amounting Rs. 22,11,750/- to the total Return Income of the appellant as undisclosed business income and same to be taxed as per provisions

SUNITA CHANANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment order be quashed. 9. For that the sanction u/s 151 of the IT Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was mechanical and without application of proper mind and the sanction was bad in law and hence the reopening be held to be bad in law. 10. For that the learned

SUNITA CHANANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment order be quashed. 9. For that the sanction u/s 151 of the IT Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was mechanical and without application of proper mind and the sanction was bad in law and hence the reopening be held to be bad in law. 10. For that the learned

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings