GOBINDA ADHIKARY,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. WARD 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is excessive, incorrectly calculated, and/or bad in law. Ground No. 5: Leave to Produce Additional Evidence (Rule 29) That the Appellant craves leave to produce additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Ground No. 6: Leave to Press, Modify, or Raise

JINDAL COMMODITIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely based on information received from DDIT(Inv.), without appreciating that the Assessing Officer failed to independently apply his mind or to record any reasons establishing a valid belief of income having escaped assessment. 2. For that The Learned CIT(A) falled to appreciate that the addition

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3. First we take the issue challenging reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 30th March, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.55,10,070/-. This return was selected

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3. First we take the issue challenging reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 30th March, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.55,10,070/-. This return was selected

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

234A since the Return of Income in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, was filed after the period allowed to file. Here, the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2017 allowing the assessee 30 days to file the return but Return was filed on 17.10.2017. Therefore the interest u/s 234A/3) was leviable

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

SURRENDRA KUMAR GOENKA,HOWRAH vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., WARD 61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

234A, 234B and 234C of the act. 5. Contrary to that, the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions, we have perused the record and find that the following facts: i) The assessee was on assignment to Netherland during FY 2019-20 from 01.04.2019 to 31.01.2020 and had received salary in Netherlands form Tata Steel

M/S FANTASTIC FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 148. 11. For that the notices u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and the noticed u/s 148 are bad in law being in violation of Sec. 151A of the Act read with Notification No. S.O. 1466(E) dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Hon'ble CBDT. 12. For that in the instant case, the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 3.1 of CBDT circular no. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, falling under the category of cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. 4. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts

SUKDEV SEN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR. 61, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

234A and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground by holding that the ground is general and consequential in nature. 6. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging excess interest of Rs. 8,00,679/- u/s. 234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground

SHRI NITYANAND PANDEY,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment is bad-in-law. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,86,25,000/- cash deposited in Bank which is purely business transaction, therefore, gross addition is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 8. For that on the facts

JINDAL COMMODITIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment and consequential assessment order are void ab initio. 2. The Ld. AO erred in making arbitrary addition of Rs. 47,16,099/- as commission income @ 5% on total bank deposits, merely on assumptions conjectures, and without bringing any supporting evidence on record and ignoring the assessee's consistent contention and admission that he was only a name lender

PEARL TRACOM(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

234A & 234B of the Act respectively and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO may kindly be directed accordingly to delete the same. Without prejudice, interest u/s 234B is chargeable only upto date of regular assessment and hence it may be held accordingly. 10. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and/or