NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reasons and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was considered and after considering the response of the assessee

ANUPAMA VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

32,310/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, based on information received that the assessee company during the year received accommodation entry of Rs.55,00,000/- from the different parties controlled and managed by Niraj Singh who was involved in providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. The case of the assessee was selected

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Any Other Issue.

32 days + 02-06-2022 04-07-2022. E) However, fresh Notice 148 was issued on 06-07-2022 with hand written DIN & Notice No. (without computer generated DIN/& Notice Number. F) Hence Notice U/s148 was barred by limitation.” 2.1 It was pointed out that vide the assessee’s letter dated 16.01.2025, these additional grounds were taken before

SATISH KUMAR BIRDIKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

reassessment on the ground that credible information has been received that the assessee is a partner of the firm M/s Premier Engineer Words during FY 2016-17, he introduced huge capital of Rs. 2,26,30,613/- in the above partnership firm. After recording satisfaction and obtaining necessary approval from the concerned authority, the AO issued notice

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

reassessment proceeding is a valid notice and if this notice is held to be invalid the entire edifice sought to be raised on such foundation has to collapse. 31 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing legal proposition raised before us by the revenue

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

reassessment proceeding is a valid notice and if this notice is held to be invalid the entire edifice sought to be raised on such foundation has to collapse. e. CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Ltd. [2014] 220 Taxman 122 12 Basis of suspicion, howsoever strong, it is not possible to record any finding of fact. As a matter

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section-147 after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section-148 was served: Provided that where the notice under section-148 is served on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect

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

32,317 is liable to be summarily rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 30.07.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “6.1 Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 4: In these grounds, the appellant has raised the issue of denial of claim

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 14.03.2019 u/s. 148 and that the\nmandatory approval of the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of\nincome tax as required to be obtained u/s. 151 of the act is invalid.\n(b) That the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of income tax has not\napplied his mind while granting

M/S. STL OVERSEAS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stl Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Room No. 316, 3Rd Floor, 12, Vs. Amartolla Street, Kolkata-700001. Pan: Aadcs 5333 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Swatee Baid, Ar Respondent By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 148 was signed by the respondent on 31.03.2018 and the same was given to the process server to be served on the appellant on the same day, but it was returned on 06.04.2018 stating that there was no such person in the given address. After ascertaining her address from the last return of income filed by her, the said

DCIT, C-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NABA DIGNATA WATER MANAGEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenus is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is not press in view of our findings on forgoing

Bench: proceeding for disallowances the AO has conducted necessary examination and ground work, which are evident from the recordings of note-sheet.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that before proceeding for disallowances the AO has conducted necessary examination and ground work, which are evident from the recordings of note-sheet. 3. That the Department craves leave

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In the present case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as 31-3-1970 was the last day of that period. Service under the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent

M/S FANCY ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 32, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Fancy Enterprises Ao,Circle-2 2, Ganesh Chandra, Income Tax Office Avenue, Bentick Street, 10B Middleton, Calcutta Vs. Commerce House West Bengal-700071 West Bengal-700 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaff5111B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024

reassessment proceedings and proviso to Section 147 of the Act provides that where an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act M/s Fancy Enterprises; A.Y. 13-14 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year unless any income

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153A(1) provides for abatement of pending assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years on the date of initiation of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The impugned assessment year is a year which falls within the period of six assessment years considering the date of search

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

32 of the Act on assets forming part of the block of assets i.e. buildings. 5.1. Further, Ld. AO noticed that during the course of assessment under section 143(3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

32 of the Act on assets forming part of the block of assets i.e. buildings. 5.1. Further, Ld. AO noticed that during the course of assessment under section 143(3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

32 of the Act on assets forming part of the block of assets i.e. buildings. 5.1. Further, Ld. AO noticed that during the course of assessment under section 143(3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

32 of the Act on assets forming part of the block of assets i.e. buildings. 5.1. Further, Ld. AO noticed that during the course of assessment under section 143(3)/147 for A.Y.2013-14 and for the A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had claimed depreciation on those buildings for which the assessee had also declared rental income under section