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

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

reassessment proceedings stand vitiated as the AO failed to\nprovide the material and information relied upon in the assessment order at\nthe stage of issuing the Section 148A notice. The non-disclosure of such\nmaterial is a direct violation of the principles of natural justice and deprives\nthe appellant of an effective opportunity to respond.\n6. That the AO erred

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

reassessment proceedings stand vitiated as the AO failed to\nprovide the material and information relied upon in the assessment order at\nthe stage of issuing the Section 148A notice. The non-disclosure of such\nmaterial is a direct violation of the principles of natural justice and deprives\nthe appellant of an effective opportunity to respond.\n6. That the AO erred

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

reassessment proceeding the assessee suo moto filed a revised computation withdrawing the claim made u/s. 10(38) of the Act and finally the assessment culminated u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in which the AO made addition on entire sale consideration of Rs.7,20,139/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Now the issue before us whether the assessee

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed through Covid-19 Pandemic and I.T.A. No. 363/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarika Dugar 4 various restrictions were made and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme