I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

155 and 158BE and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

SALES EMPORIUM (SOUTH),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to directions contained hereinabove

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2262/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 Sales Emporium (South) -Vs- Dcit, Circle-53/Now 26, Kolkata [Pan: Aawfs 6903 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 155- Other Amendments (1A) Where in respect of any completed assessment of a firm it is found— (a) on the assessment or reassessment

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

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)

155 ITR 166 (SC). In this 5 Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying

SRI KAUSHIK MUKHERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 61, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

155/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant

SHREEKANT RAY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act was passed by the AO at the total income of Rs. 1,05,46,917/- by making an addition of Rs. 94,14,477/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the finding

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

155 ITR 166 (SC). In\nthis case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that \"the provisions of\nthe Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under\nSection 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the\nmethodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

JESSOP & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

155 (Mum), it is the cumulative loss/ depreciation as appearing in the Balance Sheet which should be considered for deduction from net profit and not the loss/depreciation calculated on a year to year basis. In view of the above the Profit & Loss A/c was examined and it was observed that Cumulative brought forward profit/(Ioss) transferred from Profit & Loss

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

155 ITR 120) and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. (236 ITR 456), which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income.” 6. The CIT(A) however confirmed the order of the AO by observing that disallowance u/s.14A of the Act can be made even if there

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 on the issue which has been referred to by the ld. CIT in the impugned order and since the ld. Assessing Officer has taken a permissible view in law, therefore, ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The assesese placed reliance on plethora of judgments and the same are referred below:- S.No. Title

SANDEEP KR. SAHA, [LEGAL HEIR OF ASSESSEE VIZ.PUJA SHAH,(SINCE DECEASED)],KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-50(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 735/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sandeep Kumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward – {Legal Heir Of Assessee Viz. Puja Shah (Since Deceased)} Vs 50(4), Kolkata P-281, Cit Road Scheme-Vi(M), Kankurgachi Kolkata - 700054 [Pan : Aqeps5462N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca/Amit Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ankur Goyal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/11/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 1269 Days In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee. An Affidavit Along With An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & Perusal Of The Same Indicates That The Assessee, Namely, Puja Shah Expired On 04/01/2015 & The Said Information Was Passed On To The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. The Assessment Order Was Framed On 22/12/2017. Thereafter Appeal Of The Assessee

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act suffers from various infirmities. 6. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had totally erred in law in making arbitrary addition of the genuine Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.41,86,459, derived by the Assessee

M/S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

reassessment order u/s. 263/143(3) on 25.11.2016. (h) We take note of the fact that during the original scrutiny assessment proceedings all the individual shareholders and directors of corporate entities appeared before the AO along with the documents to prove their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. We find that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued

M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008- 09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed. 17. As far as this appeal is concerned this arises out of an order passed

M/S CLASSIC FLOUR AND FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007- 08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed. 17. As far as this appeal is concerned this arises out of an order passed

DEBABRATA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-34,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

155 (Mad)] (ii) PCIT Vs. Emta Coal Limited, ITAT/226/2022 dated 01.02.2023; (iii) Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46 (Del.); (iv) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bom); (v) Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi Vs. ACIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 541 (Bom) and (vi) Devendra Vs. Addl. JCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com520 (Bom) 7. The Ld. AR prayed that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the cross objection is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) -Vs.- M/S Eih Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.No.62/Kol/2016 (A/O I.T.A No. 1707/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Eih Ltd. -Vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6898 B] (Respondent) (Cross Objector) For The Department : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 143(3) of the Act and there was absolutely no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. 4 ITA NO.1707/Kol/2016 & C.O.No.62/Kol/2016 M/s EIH Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 It was submitted that no new material or information has come on record and thus