DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassess this issue which was before the Settlement Commission before the AO issued notice for reopening itself. We also note that the order Mani Square Ltd., AY, 2006-07 of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission is final and conclusive as per Section 245

DCIT,CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassess this issue which was before the Settlement Commission before the AO issued notice for reopening itself. We also note that the order Mani Square Ltd., AY, 2006-07 of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission is final and conclusive as per Section 245

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

COAL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

reassessment proceedings are bad under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. This principle of law has had judicial acknowledgement in following cases: (i) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), (ii) Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 245

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

A.C.I.T., CIR-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment needs to be quashed. 4.1.1. We have heard the rival submissions and we hold that while adjudicating whether the reopening of assessment is valid or not what is required to be seen is whether the Learned AO had any material at the stage of issue of notice on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief

STREAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings are governed by Section 144B read with Sections 148 and 151A, requiring issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, whereas the impugned notice was wrongly issued by the Jurisdictional AO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata. 2. For That Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation in accordance with Section

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

245 ITR 616 (AP)], wherein it was held that the provisions relating to concessions are ordinarily expected to be rigidly interpreted. The Hon Supreme court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Co Op Bank ltd & Ors vs. State Of Kerala & Ors vide civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24290 of 2019 on definition

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

245 ITR 616 (AP)], wherein it was held that the provisions relating to concessions are ordinarily expected to be rigidly interpreted. The Hon Supreme court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Co Op Bank ltd & Ors vs. State Of Kerala & Ors vide civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24290 of 2019 on definition

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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

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

245 ITR 428 (SC) has allowed this kind of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order is produced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Year in which deductible – Assessment year 1978-79 – Whether if a business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication