DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

189/- claimed to be paid by the assessee to M/s. Trichy Ramesh Pipe Industry Pvt. Limited; (3) Disallowance on account of unverifiable payments of Rs.4,30,31,106/- included under the head ‘miscellaneous’. 4. Against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2009 giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, an appeal was again preferred by the assessee before

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

189)(Bangaore- Trib.) 4. National Coal Development Corporation Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No 1564/Kol/2011) 5. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT, Coimbatore (2010) (187 Taxman 346) (SC) 10.2 The AO has further held that income earned from investments made by the appellant with a ‘co-operative bank' would not be eligible for exemption as the same

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

189)(Bangaore- Trib.) 4. National Coal Development Corporation Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No 1564/Kol/2011) 5. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT, Coimbatore (2010) (187 Taxman 346) (SC) 10.2 The AO has further held that income earned from investments made by the appellant with a ‘co-operative bank' would not be eligible for exemption as the same

ACIT, CIR. 2(1), JALPAIGURI vs. SHRI BHOLANATH AGARWAL, COOCHBEHAR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, against which your assessee did not prefer any appeal. Your assessee had capitalized the said sum of Rs.92,03,181/- in his book of account

CEEBUILD COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal]

Section 147 of the Act being not fulfilled, the AO lacks jurisdiction to reopen the scrutinized assessment of assessee for Ceebuild Company Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 AY 2010-11. For this legal proposition, the Ld. A.R. cited the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

189-191 of the said PB, vol-II. These reconciliation statements were fully checked and verified by the A.O. before submitting his Remand report to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. This aspect is dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) at internal pages 18-19 of his appellate order

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

189-191 of the said PB, vol-II. These reconciliation statements were fully checked and verified by the A.O. before submitting his Remand report to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. This aspect is dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) at internal pages 18-19 of his appellate order

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

189-191 of the said PB, vol-II. These reconciliation statements were fully checked and verified by the A.O. before submitting his Remand report to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. This aspect is dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) at internal pages 18-19 of his appellate order

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

189 shows details of cash payments of Rs.4.5 lacs on various dates in FY 2004-05 and 2005-06 under the group name Other Transactions. Page 190 shows details of cash receipt of Rs.1,70,40,000/- from Salarpuria Group on 05.03.2005 and payment of Rs.35 lacs on 11.10.2005 under the account name Devanahalli 300 acres. Page 191 shows details

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

189 shows details of cash payments of Rs.4.5 lacs on various dates in FY 2004-05 and 2005-06 under the group name Other Transactions. Page 190 shows details of cash receipt of Rs.1,70,40,000/- from Salarpuria Group on 05.03.2005 and payment of Rs.35 lacs on 11.10.2005 under the account name Devanahalli 300 acres. Page 191 shows details

SRI BIKRAMJIT PAUL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-II, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

189 (Delhi) and argued that where the assessee was aware of reasons for reopening the assessment, non-communication of reasons would not be fatal to the validity of reassessment proceedings. The proposition laid down in this case does not apply to the facts of the case on hand for the reasons that, it cannot be said that the assessee

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

section 143(3)/147 for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 5 to 5.3 of his impugned order:- “5. In this ground the appellant is disputing the A.O. action in initiating notice u/s 148. The appellant's case is that all material had been furnished before the A.O. in course of the original assessment proceedings which resulted

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

reassessment order and directed him to make necessary investigation in the light 6 I.T.A. Nos. 2574 to 2576/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Satya Prakash Sharma of the bills, invoices, delivery challans concerning transportation and delivery alone and pass a fresh assessment order re-computing the assessee’s income. 9. In the light of the discussion (supra

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

reassessment order and directed him to make necessary investigation in the light 6 I.T.A. Nos. 2574 to 2576/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Satya Prakash Sharma of the bills, invoices, delivery challans concerning transportation and delivery alone and pass a fresh assessment order re-computing the assessee’s income. 9. In the light of the discussion (supra

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

reassessment order and directed him to make necessary investigation in the light 6 I.T.A. Nos. 2574 to 2576/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Satya Prakash Sharma of the bills, invoices, delivery challans concerning transportation and delivery alone and pass a fresh assessment order re-computing the assessee’s income. 9. In the light of the discussion (supra

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

189 ITR 285 is worth noticing and attention. "......it is possible to have a revaluation of the assets, for example, stock-in- trade before dissolution, any excess which arises on the revaluation is only an imaginary or notional profit and cannot be brought to tax for the following reasons: (i) As a result of such revaluation, there

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was initiated based on alleged information that the appellant received accommodation entries of ₹91,00,000 from M/s Shree Shyam Trading Company (Prop. Satya Narayan More, PAN: CRHPM0358P). The appellant submitted complete documentation including ledger, sale invoices, confirmations, and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 4. That, without prejudice, the assessment order dated 31st March