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’).

reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not verifying the subscriptions made by the share applicants. He accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the issue. Thereafter, in the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. PERFECT WAHERS & FASTENERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 148, which fell for\ncompletion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, till 30 June 2021.\nAll the reassessment notices under challenge in the present appeals\nwere issued from 1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021 under the old\nregime. Ashish Agarwal (supra) deemed these reassessment notices\nunder the old regime as show cause notices under

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann. Com 76 (Rajasthan) and the judgment of ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Hotel Babylon Continental Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (Central) [2024] taxmann.com 306 (Raipur Trib.), which were not overruled by the ld. PCIT in the order under section 263 of the Act. A perusal of the order of ld. PCIT shows that he noted the failure

PARAS PALAZA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), KOLKATA, GOVT PLACE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Paras Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mel Layout, Bagalagunte, Ward 10(4), Kolkata Vs. Bangalore, Karnataka-560088 3, Govt Place, Kolkata-700001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecp8301N Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2025

reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 26.03.2019 under section 148, even prior to receipt of the proforma/ form containing the mandatory approval of the sanctioning Paras Plaza Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)-4, Kolkata, as required to be obtained under Section 151 of the Act.” 03. The facts

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) wherein it has been held as under: Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) wherein it has been held as under: Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added

GOODVIEW MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.986/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant 255, Canal Street, Shree Bhumi, Brijdham Housing Complex, Kolkata-700048. (Pan: Aadcg0582H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-6(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ar Appeared For Appellant Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 16.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2008-09 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 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 144/263 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 5. That on the facts and in law, the reopening u/s 147 of the Act having being done for escapement of income in relation to consultancy fees, the scope of assessment could not have been expanded u/s 263 of the Act unless provided

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)

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 as 22.09.2011. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) were pending

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I. T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re- assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.’’ He further placed reliance upon the following judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings, had furnished audited Tax audit report showing the receipt and payment of the said loan etc. Hence, it is palpable that the AO, by not considering the aforesaid averments presented by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, relied on the statements of one unrelated arbitrary person recorded by the investigation wing and had made addition on the said

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company being the flagship concern of ‘Avima Group’ was engaged mainly in trading of jute products. The assessee filed original Return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 27.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.33

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 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. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

reassessment proceedings, had furnished audited Tax audit report showing the receipt and payment of the said loan etc. Hence, it is palpable that the AO, by not considering the aforesaid averments presented by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, relied on the statements of one unrelated arbitrary person recorded by the investigation wing and had made addition on the said

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 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. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

reassessment proceedings, had furnished audited Tax audit report showing the receipt and payment of the said loan etc. Hence, it is palpable that the AO, by not considering the aforesaid averments presented by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, relied on the statements of one unrelated arbitrary person recorded by the investigation wing and had made addition on the said

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) where the facts were that after search and seizure operations assessee declared certain undisclosed income which was added to the income disclosed in returns filed in response to notice issued under section 153A and the assessment orders were followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee’s submissions

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) where the facts were that after search and seizure operations assessee declared certain undisclosed income which was added to the income disclosed in returns filed in response to notice issued under section 153A and the assessment orders were followed by notices under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 and after considering assessee’s submissions

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

reassessment of income-tax. 21. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here, that it is not all type of taxes that are not allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act, but the question before us is of the allowability of interest on delayed payment income tax itself. Certain taxes such as sales tax, excise or custom duty

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

reassessment of income- tax. 21. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here, that it is not all type of taxes that are not allowable as deduction under the Income-tax Act, but the question before us is of the allowability of interest on delayed payment income tax itself. Certain taxes such as sales tax, excise or custom duty

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

reassessment of income- tax. 21. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here, that it is not all type of taxes that are not allowable as deduction under the Income-tax Act, but the question before us is of the allowability of interest on delayed payment income tax itself. Certain taxes such as sales tax, excise or custom duty

QUADEYE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Aabce7790H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 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 29.02.2024 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Of Rs.2,47,48,393/- Incurred By The Assessee In Commodities Dealing In National Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Limited (‘Nmce’) Platform & Further Making Addition Of Rs.4,92,263/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Commission That Might Have Been Paid By The Assessee In Booking The Aforesaid Bogus Loss In Commodity Trading.

163 taxmann. com 37 (Bombay) 6. Reynolds Shirting Ltd -vs- ACIT - 135 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay) / [2022] 285 Taxman 554 (Bombay) 7. PCIT -vs- Eastern Coalfields Ltd. - ITAT/98/2018, judgment dated 04.01.2022 (Cal HC) 8. PCIT -vs- Sambuddha Tracon Pvt. Ltd. - ITAT/90/2022, judgment dated 15.11.2022 (Cal HC) 9 Champalal Omprakash -vs- ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1397 (Kolkata - Trib.) 10. PKC Securities