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

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

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

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding has been seized during the course of search operation in the case of Shri P. Dayanand Pai and, therefore, the provisions of section 292C does not apply on ITA No. 736/Kol/2022 & C.O. No. 3/Kol/2023 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2005-06 the assessee since the presumption as to books of accounts, assets etc. is in respect

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding has been seized during the course of search operation in the case of Shri P. Dayanand Pai and, therefore, the provisions of section 292C does not apply on ITA No. 736/Kol/2022 & C.O. No. 3/Kol/2023 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2005-06 the assessee since the presumption as to books of accounts, assets etc. is in respect

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

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

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

M/S ROYAL TOUCH FABLON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

reassessment proceeding without fulfilling the condition as enumerated u/s. 147 of the Act and without independent application of mind. The assessee has also raised another legal issue challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO while the assessment is bad in law in view because of notice u/s. 143(2) not being issued within

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

ITO WARD 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

reassessment cannot be sustained on the basis of only change of opinion. He has challenged the reasons for reopening by citing a decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO [2014] 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC). 7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties there is no dispute that

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 57(3) of the Act is applicable only for expenses incurred to earn the income, therefore, the alleged interest expenditure having no nexus with the interest earned during the year cannot be allowed as deduction. 9. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the paper book containing various details including cash flow statement

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]

section 68 of the Act. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the record and the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and developers in real estate in different parts of the country. The share applicant company is regularly assessed

REGIS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Act. The Id. AR\nvehemently contended that there was no satisfaction recorded in the\nreasons by the AO and he merely treated the information received\nfrom ITO(inv), Unit-1, Kolkata, as gospel truth. The Id. AR further\nsubmitted that the assessee was not having any bank account with\nICICI bank and had never deposited