ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

154. The bench minutely analysed law in this regard and applying the principle of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when action for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the validity of the reassessment

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 11. Since the reference was made to the AVO on 07.11.2019, the valuation report dated 19.12.2019 was received

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(3)-\nonly recorded by Assessing Officer must be considered: - [Prashant S. Joshl v. ITO\n(2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom.)\nThe Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata (in the decision dated 02.11.2018), in the case of Proficient\nCommodities Pvt Ltd v DCIT, Cir 5(1) Kol [ITA No 2307 & 20308/Kol/2017] held as\nunder:\n\"6. Applying the propositions

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3) of the Act, the total income is assessed at Rs. 2,23,86,630/- which is the same as the income as per the return of income. Our attention was further drawn to column 14 of the computation sheet in which total income after deduction is shown at Rs. 2,49,43,470/- while in column 16 the aggregate

R S ISPAT LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 of the Act wherein it was inter alia pointed out that, the reasons for which the assessment was reopened viz., unexplained purchases of Rs.3,46,77,884/- had already been added back in the original assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore the addition made in the impugned reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act, amounted to double

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

154 / 147 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. ACIT(OSD), Ward-i(i), Kolkata rectifying the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 by levying interest under section 234 of the Act by observing as under; “In the instance case order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I. T. Act for the AY 2010- 11 was passed on 27.12.2017, with assessed income

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 14 7(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such escapement occurred

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

154 / 143(3) read with Section 144C was passed on 31.10.2016 with total income of Rs. 4,11,86,92,370/-. Subsequently the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 and the assessment was framed u/s 147/144/254/143(3) dated 27.12.2016 by making various additions. Pertinent to note that

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

154 / 143(3) read with Section 144C was passed on 31.10.2016 with total income of Rs. 4,11,86,92,370/-. Subsequently the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 and the assessment was framed u/s 147/144/254/143(3) dated 27.12.2016 by making various additions. Pertinent to note that

R D TEA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1555/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 R D Tea Limited……………………..……………………………..………….……Appellant Dhandhania House, 2Nd Floor, 4, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700071. [Pan: Aabcr3010M] Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.67,34,990/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.03.2015 By Assessing Total Income Of Rs.86,23,780/- Which Was Subsequently Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act On 27.04.2015 By Assessing Total Income Of Rs.83,90,960/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 27.03.2019 After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority. In Response To Such Notice, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Again Declaring The Same Income As Earlier I.E. Rs.67,34,990/-. During The

154 of the Act on 27.04.2015 by assessing total income of Rs.83,90,960/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019 after obtaining approval from the competent authority. In response to such notice, the assessee filed its return of income again declaring

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]

154 of the Act.” 6. The Ld. Pr. CIT rejected all the contentions raised by the assessee and set aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act by directing the AO to conduct proper enquiry and verification of the information received from the Investigation Wing. 7. The Ld. AR vehemently submitted before

KRYPTON INDUSTRIES LIMITED,FALTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1186/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krypton Industries Ltd.…………………..……..…………………....Appellant Plot 31 & 32, Sector-1, Falta, 24 North Parganas, W.B – 743504. [Pan: Aabck0868N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala & Vidhi Ladia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Kolkata, Dated 31.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Information Was Received From The Investigation Wing, Kolkata, Indicating That The Assessee-Company Had Taken Bogus Purchases From One Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh To Reduce Its Taxable Income. A Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On The Said Person & His Statement Was Recorded. Based On The Appraisal Report & Material Found During The Search, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Was One Of The Beneficiaries Of Such Bogus

154 dated 30.11.2022, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee was specifically against the assessment order dated 22.11.2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014–15. Instead of adjudicating the grounds raised in the appeal against the reassessment

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

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

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

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3 of the assessment order has noted that the appellant filed some documents and also acknowledgement of return filed by it dated 24.08.2016. However, since the appellant did not inform that this return is to be treated as in response to notice u/s 148, the AO proceeded u/s 144 as if no return has been filed in response to notice

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3 of the assessment order has noted that the appellant filed some documents and also acknowledgement of return filed by it dated 24.08.2016. However, since the appellant did not inform that this return is to be treated as in response to notice u/s 148, the AO proceeded u/s 144 as if no return has been filed in response to notice

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3 of the assessment order has noted that the appellant filed some documents and also acknowledgement of return filed by it dated 24.08.2016. However, since the appellant did not inform that this return is to be treated as in response to notice u/s 148, the AO proceeded u/s 144 as if no return has been filed in response to notice

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154 of the Act, which allows for the correction of any mistake apparent from the record in the assessment order. It is clarified that this procedure is intended to address mathematical or clerical discrepancies without affecting the substantive findings of the assessment. The assessee may submit a written application to the AO providing the relevant details and supporting documents