ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

reassessment was upheld.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec. 147", "Sec. 148", "Sec. 10(38)", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 69C", "Sec. 250", "Sec. 234B

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

SATYAJIT DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.301/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyajit Das……………………...................................................……Appellant Moubesia, Dhulasimla, Uluberia, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Agvpd4627P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 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 20.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ 1. For That Both The Impugned Order Of Assessment & The Appellate Order Dated 28.12.2017 & 20.11.2019 Respectively Are Bad In Law & Based On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts. 2. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining The Assessment, As The Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Invoking

reassess in this case. 18.FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessment completed without giving the appellant any chance of hearing is bad in law and liable to quashed in appeal. 19.FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O., used materials collected behind the back of the Appellant and without giving the appellant

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]

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 Netherland

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds

MELCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B and 234D of the Act is wrong and unjustified and Id. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the same by dismissing the appeal of the appellant as unadmitted. (7) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was reopened by issuing

RAHUL ANAND,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC,, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

234B and 234C of the Act as the same has been correctly computed while processing, thereby, inter- alia implying that the credit for FTC was denied. The assessee relied upon the decision of in ITA No. 78/KOL/2024 and brought our attention to page 150 of the Paper Book at para 17 and also brought our attention to page

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

VAIBHAV DAS MUNDHRA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B & 234C of the Income tax Act. The levy of interest is consequential and mandatory hence leviable. This ground is dismissed.” 4. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

234B and 234C of the Act. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground by holding that the ground is general and consequential in nature. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging excess interest of Rs. 18,628/- u/s. 234C 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