PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

150 ITR (c) 513/[1983] 15 Taxman 535 (Bom.) the Division Bench upheld the finding that :— "An order could be said to be erroneous when either it did not decide a point and record a finding on an issue which ought to have been done or decided it wrongly." (d) In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance

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.

reassessment order passed on 30.03.2015 proposed to be revised by the Notice, will automatically get cancelled and as a consequence thereof any order passed under section 263 of the Act will also be infructuous. 1.(b) Further and in any event we wish to point out that the original assessment was reopened on the following reasons: ‘During the assessment proceedings

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

150 taxmann.com 54 on the basis of the same search of Sanwaria and Kasera Group held that the report of the Investigation Wing which is based on "potential cash borrowings and 'possible' financial transactions is not called for and set aside the reassessment proceedings. Relevant portion of said order reads as under: 7. If the assessing office fails to obey

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken, it would be a case of formation of no option and, hence, in such cases assessment order itself records that issue was raised and is decided in favour of assessee; reassessment proceedings in said cases will be hit by principle of ‘change of opinion’. In Raymond Woollen Mills

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

150 taxmann.com 460) (Bom HC) 10. The Ld. AR further stated that in AY 2010-11 notice u/s. 148 was issued by ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata on 28.03.2017 after a period of four years but before six year from the end of relevant assessment years and in terms of provision of section 151 of the Act (as it stood

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

reassessment order u/s. 147/143 dated 19.12.2013 without reasonable opportunity of hearing although the assessment will be barred by limitation on 31.03.2015, as the total interest awarded ,of Rs. 10,58,25,030/- to be divided equally in 10 assessment year i.e. Rs. 105,82,503/- for the assessment year 2005-06. That the basis for reopening the assessment

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

reassessment order u/s. 147/143 dated 19.12.2013 without reasonable opportunity of hearing although the assessment will be barred by limitation on 31.03.2015, as the total interest awarded ,of Rs. 10,58,25,030/- to be divided equally in 10 assessment year i.e. Rs. 105,82,503/- for the assessment year 2005-06. That the basis for reopening the assessment

M/S SUN - KWIK APPLIANCES PVT LTD.(FORMERLY PUSHPANJALI APPLIANCES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVI,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

150% of the tax sought to be evaded which was subsequently reduced by Ld. CIT(A) in appellate stage to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. We find that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate from each other. The AO for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has to clearly specify

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

150 of the Act. For the sake of reference, the said section deserves to be reproduced as under: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

reassessment proceedings was bad in law as it did not satisfy the condition precedent in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 18. We also find merit in the alternate contention made by the Ld. AR that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2016 without first forming reasons to believe that income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1173 & 1175/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kol- 700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2013-14 Against Separate Orders Dated 21.02.2025 & 25.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

150 of the Act. For the sake of reference, the said section deserves to be reproduced as under: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd assessment or reassessment

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

reassess such income. Thereafter the appellant would like to submit that reason to believe being the foremost criteria for reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act, it should be interpreted in the right perspective. 'Reason to believe' cannot be reason to suspect merely. There must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are\ndismissed

150 of the\nAct. For the sake of reference, the said section deserves to be reproduced\nas under:\n"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under\nsection 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an\nassessment or reassessment

RAHUL ANAND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC,, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

150 of the Paper Book at para 17 and also brought our attention to page 43 of the Paper Book containing the Doble Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Thailand dt. 27.06.1986. The form no.67 was filed on 08.04.2021, which was subsequent to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.03.2021. 5. Further, similar issue arose

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

150 6B, Bentinck Street, Aloka House 23.01.2012 10,000,000 Chq Kolkata-700 001 27.03.2012 730,327 Chq 811,475 81,148 PA No. AAACN 8759L R.A.Trading Pvt Ltd 10,570,575 21.06.2011 570,575 Chq Yes 10,570,575 1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor 28.03.2012 10,000,000 RTGS Kolkata

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

reassessment proceedings are held to be valid and the Ground no. 2 of the appeal is therefore dismissed”. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition of Rs.8,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 8 to 8.2 of his impugned order

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

150/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,86,69,913/- after making two additions viz: one of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Rs. 55,13,750/- and second addition of Rs. 38,38,484/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 Later on, Ld Principal Commissioner of Income

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INTRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

150/- after claiming deductions of Rs.82,51,545/- and Rs.33,00,170/- respectively under section 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2006. Deductions of Rs.82,51,545/- and Rs.33,00,170/- were allowed M/s. ABCI Infrastructure