M/S BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

11) share applicants out of thirteen (13) share thirteen (13) share-holders had furnished the source of investment made in holders had furnished the source of investment made in the assessee the assessee-company after getting the notice from second AO under company after getting the notice from second AO under section 133(6) of the Act. Thus we note

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

6. For that the CIT wrongly stated that the A.O. has not considered various facts whereas all the facts as mentioned by the CIT in its order passed under section 263 of the Act are discussed and mentioned in the order of reassessment. 7. For that full and complete enquiry was made in respect of the allowance/disallowance of operational

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

11 September, 2019, which were objected by the petitioner. On such objection, an order was passed by the Assessing officer rejecting the objections as raised by the petitioners, so as to pro- ceed to reassess the income of the petitioner under Section 147 of the Act. 13. As clearly seen from the record, to which, we have made a refer

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) ng the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2, 160 to 184 the 2, 160 to 184 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivashiv Dealcom Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivashiv

M/S METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

11. The rival submissions which have been urged on behalf of the revenue and the assessee can be dealt with, both as a matter of first principle, interpreting the section as it stands and on the basis of precedents on the subject. Interpreting the provision as it 7 Dipti Mehta AY- 2010-11 stands and without adding or deducting from

M/S BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

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

6. The Assessing Officer made a solitary addition of Rs. 22.57 lakh in the assessment under section 147 which was the only basis for initiating the reassessment and the same got finally deleted in the first appeal. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the mandate of the section, which provides that : 'If the Assessing Officer has reason

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

11. We note that in the assessee`s case under consideration the reassessment proceedings was based on review of the same set of facts/details which were already on record before AO at the time of completion of original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.We note that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 44.45 lacs

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. [Para 11]” 9. The Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the provisions of law. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made and have also gone through the facts of the case. In this case

TARAKESWAR VIVEKANANDA PALLY SEVA KENDRA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

6 the purview of Section 12. Voluntary contributions covered by Section 12 are those contributions freely available to the assessee without any stipulation, which the assessee can utilise towards its objectives according to its own discretion and judgment. Tied-up grants for a specified purpose would only mean that the assessee which was a voluntary organisation, had agreed

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

11 to 15 are in relation to merits of the case. As regards ground nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 the submissions are reproduced as under: “The appeal is filed against reassessment order framed by AO. The assessee is firstly agitating Ground No. 1 regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings as the same is barred by limitation. Reference

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

11 to 15 are in relation to merits of the case. As regards ground nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 the submissions are reproduced as under: “The appeal is filed against reassessment order framed by AO. The assessee is firstly agitating Ground No. 1 regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings as the same is barred by limitation. Reference

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. In reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return of reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return of reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return of income was in fact filed were were in time i.e., on 20/10/2016 and it was wrong on part

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

6. The assessee has filed the return in response to the notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) and supplied the copy of the reasons to the assessee. Against these reasons, assessee has filed objections running into 28 pages. Such objections are placed at pages no. 32 to 60 of the paper

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

6. The assessee has filed the return in response to the notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) and supplied the copy of the reasons to the assessee. Against these reasons, assessee has filed objections running into 28 pages. Such objections are placed at pages no. 32 to 60 of the paper