MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

112/-. On the analogy of discussion made in the case of Arati Ray, he recorded that as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the full sale value ought to be considered equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid by the vendee. Thus, in his opinion, the assessee has undervalued the long-term capital gain

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

112/-. On the analogy of discussion made in the case of Arati Ray, he recorded that as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the full sale value ought to be considered equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid by the vendee. Thus, in his opinion, the assessee has undervalued the long-term capital gain

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

112, CR Avenue, Kolkata. The directors of the company are Samir Das and Sunny\nSingh During course of investigation, it was unearthed that Bank account of the said\ncompany was utilized for layering fund and providing accommodation entry to the\nbeneficiaries. In this regard, statement of Dummy Directors namely Samir Das, Chandan\nChakraborty, Naveen Jain, Hruda Nanda Behera, Arindam Dutta

GPT SONS PVT. LTD(FOR GPT VENTURE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. -3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Gpt Sons Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (For Gpt Venture Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Since Amalgamated) 3(1), Kolkata. Vs. Jc-25, Gpt Centre, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700098. (Pan: Aabcp2721K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act. He thus, held the reassessment proceeding as legally valid. On the merits of the case also, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by holding that assessee had failed to rebut the findings and observations made by the Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has emphasized

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer has called for complete details of the share capital and share premium of Rs.14,69,50,000/- to which the assessee has filed all relevant details, which were further utilized by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. He moved a step further for digging

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was correct and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal. Therefore

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore