GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return 4 Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

145 shall. so far as may be, apply.\" An analysis of this\nsub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing\nofficer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice\nunder Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This\nSection does not provide for accepting

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

145 shall, so far as may be apply. This indicates that this clause enables the Assessing Officer, after the return is filed, to complete the assessment under Section 143 (2) by following the procedure like issue of notice under Section 143 (2)/142. This does not provide accepting the return as provided under Section 143 (1) (a). The Officer

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

145 taxxman.com 27(Gujarat),\nthe assessee is being not a beneficiary of the loans anymore, the addition\nis not liable to be made in the hands of the assessee.\n7. In reply, the Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and\nCIT(A).\n8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in\nthe present case

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

145 taxmann.com 131 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 60\nhas relied on variousApex Court decisions and had made an observation\nthat it is trite law that the power to assess the escaped income under Section\n147 of the Act though stands broadened/expanded over the years through\nperiodical\namendments, one feature which has remained\nconstant/unchanged and prevailed during the relevant assessment year

RAINBOW VANIJYA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3), furnishing seized materials to the assessee and (establishing any nexus between the assessee and the alleged unaccounted purchases. Accordingly, we hold that the said addition of Rs.61,49,041/- is unjustified and is hereby deleted.”\n011. In view of the underlying facts vis a vis the decisions as discussed above, we are not in agreement with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings and after obtaining the reply/explanation of the assessee made an addition of Rs. 21,27,60,640/-(by typo error mentioned as ₹22,27,60,640/-) as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 27.03.2023. 06. In the appellate proceedings ld. CIT(A) partly deleted the addition after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings and after obtaining the reply/explanation of the assessee made an addition of Rs. 21,27,60,640/-(by typo error mentioned as ₹22,27,60,640/-) as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 27.03.2023. 06. In the appellate proceedings ld. CIT(A) partly deleted the addition after

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated." ".... A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

145 taxxman.com 27(Gujarat),\nthe assessee is being not a beneficiary of the loans anymore, the addition\nis not liable to be made in the hands of the assessee.\nIn reply, the Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and\nCIT(A).\nWe have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in\nthe present case clearly shows

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

145(3) of the Act and the estimation is merely based on surmises and conjectures. iii) Similar contentions have been made with regard to the estimation of net profit in liquor business where also, without rejecting the book results, the ld. Assessing Officer erred in estimating the profits. 6 I.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik

M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-I(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

145 days in filing of I.T.A. No. 2514/Kol/2019 and I.T.A. No. 2515/Kol/2019 by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by the assessee explaining the reasons for late filing of appeal. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing these appeals in time. Accordingly, we condone

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), JALPAIGURI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

145 days in filing of I.T.A. No. 2514/Kol/2019 and I.T.A. No. 2515/Kol/2019 by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by the assessee explaining the reasons for late filing of appeal. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing these appeals in time. Accordingly, we condone

M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-I(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

145 days in filing of I.T.A. No. 2514/Kol/2019 and I.T.A. No. 2515/Kol/2019 by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by the assessee explaining the reasons for late filing of appeal. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing these appeals in time. Accordingly, we condone

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reachasia……………………..……………..............................……….……Appellant 109/28, Hazra Road, Kol- 700026. [Pan: Aagrf2430K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 03, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

reassessment of the assessee u/s 147 can only be made subject to the satisfaction of the condition envisaged under 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act which states an assessment has been made u/s 143(3), the reopening u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the income has escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of true

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

145: 1953 SCR 1057 (SC) it was held that the expression "borrowed money" means real borrowing or real lending. It must be construed in its natural and ordinary meaning and implies a real borrowing and real lending. It requires the existence of a borrower and a lender and accordingly there must be a real borrowing. 9. Unlike section

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

145: 1953 SCR 1057 (SC) it was held that the expression "borrowed money" means real borrowing or real lending. It must be construed in its natural and ordinary meaning and implies a real borrowing and real lending. It requires the existence of a borrower and a lender and accordingly there must be a real borrowing. 9. Unlike section

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

145:1953 SCR 1057 (SC) it was held that the expression “borrowed money” means real borrowing or real lending . It must be construed in its natural and ordinary meaning and implies a real borrowing and real lending . It requires the existence of a borrower and a lender and accordingly there must be a real borrowing . 9. Unlike section