SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

163 taxman.com 762 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in Sri Dinakara Suvarna Vs. DCIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 362 (Karnataka) Vs PCIT (2022) 147 taxmann.com 362 (Karnataka) wherein the SLP filed by the revenue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was dismissed vide its order in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 489 (SC). The operative of the decision

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

1 SCC 438, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax Act is a complete code with respect to assessment and 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

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

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

section 143(3) dated 30.03.2023 of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT the Order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolkata-2 (PCIT) dated 25.03.2025 is barred by limitation of time prescribed under the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

1) of the Act for the purposes of assessing the income of the appellant was to expire on 31.03.2016. The AO alleges that such notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and also dispatched to the appellant on 31.03.2016. But the said notice remained unserved. However, finally the said notice was served through e-mail

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

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

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

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code and any other law for the time being in force, the Special Court may make such order as it G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 may deem fit directing the Custodian for the disposal of the property under attachment. (2) The following liabilities shall be paid

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

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code and any other law for the time being in force, the Special Court may make such order as it G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 may deem fit directing the Custodian for the disposal of the property under attachment. (2) The following liabilities shall be paid

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

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

SMT. NITA SETHIA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Nita Sethia V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 5, Janki Shah Road, 1St 3(3), 110, Shanti Pally, Floor, Hastings, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700022 Poorva, E.M. Bye Pass, [Pan No.Ajwps 8335 H] Nr. Ruby Hospital, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.930/Acit,Cc-3(3)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 153A R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Her Instant Appeal. Her Former Legal Grievance Challenges Validity Of Sec. 153A Proceedings In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search. This Follows Her Latter Substantive Ground On Merits That The Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating Long

163/- be treated as the one filed in furtherance to sec 153A proceeding. She further objected to the impugned proceeding for lack of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search conducted in her case. The Assessing Officer rejected the same quoting hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia

SHRI DIPENDRA NATH CHUNDER,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-54(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the impugned notices dated 23rd

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non- resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment

RADIX TIE-UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Kolkata 184/A, Regent Colony, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr1237M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2019 Passed In Case No.791/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 27.01.20 Explaining Five Days’ Delay To Be Attributable To Various Procedural Aspects & Compilation Of Necessary Records & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, I Condone The Impugned Delay Of Five Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

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