SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

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

section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment proceedings were initiated in this case, by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.09.2010, prior to the end of the limitation period to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act was null and void. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied

LEMONGRASS DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

reassessment order be quashed.” 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed its original return of income of 25.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,200/- which was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) was framed vide order dated 26.03.2015. Thereafter addition made in the assessment was reduced after giving effect to the order of PCIT

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment\nproceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed.\nIn the case of CIT vs Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been\nheld as follows:\n\"Held dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the\nassessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash\nalong with some premium for taking

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

264/- had escaped assessment out of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.5,21,17,075/-. Whereas, in the assessment order the AO added back Rs.2,20,195/- only. Thus, there has been underassessment to the tune of Rs.5,04,06,069/-. It was observed that the assessee had taken loan/ advances in cash above in excess of Rs.20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

264 of the Act dated 18-01- 2017, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment de novo after making enquiry regarding genuineness and source of the share capital. The scrutiny assessment order was framed by the DCIT, Circle-13(1), Kolkata on 31/03/2015 a total income of Rs. 9,75,33,210/-, as a result

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

M/S. JAGMAG MERCANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

264 ITR 566 (SC)/[2003], wherein it has held that when there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied

M/S. JAGMAG MERCANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

264 ITR 566 (SC)/[2003], wherein it has held that when there was no failure on part of petitioner to make return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI ALUMINA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. His further submission is that the share applicant’s companies return for AY 2012-13 was accepted without any further quarry and further the return for AY 2009-10 of the applicant company was also accepted by the department in reassessment proceedings. According to him, the share applicant’s audited financial statement since

KINETIC VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee without arguing into the merit of the case has submitted that

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

264 of the Act and at the same time filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It was stated by the respondent- department that rule 128 is mandatory and cannot be considered as directory in nature. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

264 of the Act and at the same time filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It was stated by the respondent-department that rule 128 is mandatory and cannot be considered as directory in nature. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting

DEBANJAN CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

264 of the Act and at the same time filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It was stated by the respondent- department that rule 128 is mandatory and cannot be considered as directory in nature. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting