ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

v. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94/251 Taxman 202/398 ITR 531 (SC) (SC). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the various clauses in section 2(47) of the Act and what was relevant in the said case was clause (vi) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. At the outset, it was observed that Ld AR of assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings of assessment on the ground that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has not been issued by the Competent Authority. 5. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. At the outset, it was observed that Ld AR of assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings of assessment on the ground that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has not been issued by the Competent Authority. 5. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the report from district valuation officer. 4. The ld AO observed in his order as under:- “Since this is a time barring case and the assessment proceedings have to be completed within the stipulated time. Rather depending on the assessee's submission, it is inevitable to substantiate with the preliminary report provided

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the report from district valuation officer. 4. The ld AO observed in his order as under:- “Since this is a time barring case and the assessment proceedings have to be completed within the stipulated time. Rather depending on the assessee's submission, it is inevitable to substantiate with the preliminary report provided

D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

47) defining the expressions 'capital asset' & 'transfer' were amended and the amended provisions were made effective retrospectively from 01.04.1962. Similarly amendments were carried out in Section 9(1)(vi) & 9(1)(vii) enlarging the definition of income deemed to accrue in India by way of 'royalty' and 'fees for technical services' and the amendments were made effective retrospectively from

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’).

v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 47 wherein it has been observed that - "the power that can be exercised under section 143(2) to correct the assessment made under section 143(1) does not exclude the power of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 if the ingredients of section 147 are satisfied. It is open

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

v. CIT [2014] 365 1TR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the date on which the agreement for sale was executed could be considered the date on which the property was Page 4 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. transferred. The Supreme Court held that when

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

v. CIT 2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Del) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom) have taken a view that Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules will apply only for A.Ys. 2008-09 and subsequent assessment years. It has also been laid down that the assessee

M/S. SHREE SHOPPERS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13

47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction No. 1/2011 (supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

47,24,000/-. It is not in dispute that there was no interest expenditure incurred in making investments which yielded tax free income. The only question was disallowance of other expenses in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the rules. The claim of the Assessee was that a sum of RS.3,00,000 being salary of one employee

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-9 (4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction no. 1/2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-9 (4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction no. 1/2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

47,93,857 which the assessee had directly credited to the Capital Reserve Account. According to the Assessing Officer the assessee had derived benefit on the basis of either depreciation or utilizing the working capital which would have formed part of the earlier years income. According to the Assessing Officer since the loans ceased to exist, this amounted to cessation