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

M/S. 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

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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

section 14A r.w.r 8D(2) of the Act. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee during the year had received dividend income of Rs.4436 only, whereas, the assessee had already disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- in the computation of income on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A

LINEAR DEALERS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.] 67[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A of the\nAct read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to ₹1,83,51,518/-\nSince, the assessee had already disallowed ₹37,56,860/- as\nexpenditure incurred to earn exempt income, hence the sum of\n₹1,45,94,658/- [₹1,83,51,518 - ₹37,56,860] was disallowed and added\nback to the total

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

14A read with rule 8D of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the addition made by the AO in respect of employees’ contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.92

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

14A read with rule 8D of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ground nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the addition made by the AO in respect of employees’ contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.92

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153A(1) provides for abatement of pending assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years on the date of initiation of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The impugned assessment year is a year which falls within the period of six assessment years considering the date of search

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

2. That the appellant subtly avoided the onus to produce any director for verification of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lay upon him in terms of section

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit further evidence. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue of Section 80G deduction to the AO for verification of eligibility and fund approval.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "8D", "80G", "250", "143(3)", "143(2

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIESLIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14A r/w rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii), Rs 3.94 lakhs on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to ESI and club expenses of Rs 0.23 lakhs as personal expenditure. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order

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 were carried out after providing of valid notices and ld. AO did not make any addition on the issue for which the assessee’s case was reopened and completed the assessment making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 6,951/- and income assessed at Rs. 4,56,341/-. 5. This assessment order dated

AAYUSH COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Aayush Commerce Private Limited Pcit, Kolkata – 2 Maurya Patna Vs South Gandhi Maidan Patna - 800001 [Pan : Aacca0933B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 311 (Three Hundred & Eleven Days) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 09/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation. Vide This Order A

2) of the Act and, therefore, required to be quashed. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessment was framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt. 05/12/2018 assessing total income at Rs.13,06,140/- as against the declared income of Rs.3,06,136/- vide return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 27/09/2011

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

reassessment had indeed been framed on 31-03-2016. We note in this backdrop of pleadings that the tribunal’s coordinate bench decision in ITA No. 1194/Kol/2017 ACIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal dt. 28-02-2019 has decided the very issue of an assessment is validly beyond the stipulated limitation period as under:- 2. We come to Revenue's appeal

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

reassessment had indeed been framed on 31-03-2016. We note in this backdrop of pleadings that the tribunal’s coordinate bench decision in ITA No. 1194/Kol/2017 ACIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal dt. 28-02-2019 has decided the very issue of an assessment is validly beyond the stipulated limitation period as under:- 2. We come to Revenue's appeal