TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced as under: “I, Ajay Kumar Kejriwal S/o, Krishna Kejriwal, Director of M/s Oplus Steel and Power Private Limited (Formerly Known as Swati Concast and Power Private Limited) residing at Rosedale Garden, Tower-2, Flat-12A, Near Uniworld City, New Town, North 24 Paragans -700156 West Bengal, having PAN: AHOPK8976A, do hereby

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment by passing an order u/s. 147/143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 93,57,008/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit.” 2.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that 5 notices issued at the e-mail addresses i.e. (i) A.PROVASH@GMAIL.COM and (ii) saassociates.adv@gmail.com, which were available

M/S. VICTOR COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings were completed vide order u/s 147/143(3) wherein certain adjustment/additions/disallowances were made and the income was assessed at Rs.20,35,380/- as against the returned income of Rs. 14,30,900/-. The assessee had claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 16,20,135/- M/s Victor Commercial Co. Ltd. : AYs: 2009-10 and 2010-11 in its return

DIAMOND TRADECOM PRIVATE LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment with directions to the Ld. AO to conduct detailed inquiries into the source of the share capital and premium, examine the source of funds, verify documents, and examine the directors and the subscriber companies to determine the true nature and authenticity of the capital infusion. Repeated notices were issued to the assessee company and also to the directors

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

SMT. SNEHA BRAHMA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHYAMAL KUMAR BRAHMA,RAIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , RAIGANJ

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

246A thereon and confirming of the Assessment and dismissing of the said Appeal by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi was not based upon the facts and circumstances of the Case and cannot be sustained. ITA No.: 1085/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma. 02. That

MATHLETICS LLP FORMERLY MATHLETICS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Mathletics Llp Formerly Ito, Ward-9(1), Mathletics (P) Ltd. Kolkata C/O. P.K. Himmatsinghka, 41 Vs. B.B. Ganguly Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700012. Pan: Aaxfm 4704 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Kumar Himmatsinghka, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104812839(1) Dated 21.12.2022 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

reassessed in the order u/s 147, then it is not open to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently. 7.3. It was also argued that initiation of proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 was on non-existence entity and, therefore, the entire proceedings are bad in law in view of the decision

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

reassessment was completed on a total income of Rs.90.39 lakhs (including an addition of Rs. 68.64 lakhs on account of bogus claim of LTCG plus Rs.3.43 lakhs being the alleged commission @ 5%, paid to brokers ( entry providers ) . 5) The matter carried in appeal, has been dismissed by the Ld first appellate authority, in absence of any representation or any response

AMALENDU KUMAR MODAK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 50(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Amalendu Kumar Modak, Income Tax Officer, 50(1), Karer Ganga, Laha Bagan, Garia, Income Tax Office, Civil Centre, Vs Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084, Uttarapan Complex, West Bengal Manicktala, Kolkata-700 067, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aekpm9399G Present For: Appellant By : Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit (A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2017-18 Dated 14.11.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 147 Read With Section 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

Reassessment Proceeding is not maintainable for not having complied with mandatory methodology , i.e., through Faceless Mode). Amalendu Kumar Modak; A.Y. 2017-18 Grounds on Merit C 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 41,72,360/- being the Cash deposited in Bank during the Demonetization phase, after treating the same