ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

reassessment u/s147. Similarly, it has also been held in various judicial pronouncements that the reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings u/s147, have to speak for themselves. The reasons must provide a live link to the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons cannot keep the assessee guessing fur the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s147. These

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

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied on the order

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,34,819/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as imposed by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is submitted that the penalty order u/s 271B passed by Ld. AO lacks application of mind and is not sustainable and thus the penalty imposed on the assessee may be deleted in full. The Ld. SR. DR relied on the order

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date\nof receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the\nAssessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:\n5.2.14. Hence, from a bare reading of section 153C, it is clear that section 153C inter-\nalia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section\n147/148/149/151/153

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.

1. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 15.07.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has made two additions

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

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.

1) Kolkata & Ors., WPA 25770 of 2022. 9. We further note that the reasons mentioned in the order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act, for issuing notice under sec 148 dated 5.8.2022 does not survive after the CIT(A) order as the addition was deleted by ld CIT(A). Therefore the addition on other issues not forming part of order

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]

1), Kolkata (PAN: ADZPB 8593 M) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 07.04.2025 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 30.06.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से For the revenue / राज"व Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT Sr. D.R क" ओर से ORDER / आदेश

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.

1-Validity of the reassessment proceedings a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and Reassessment order by the learned Assessing Officer

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

32 587/K/23 2009-2010 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 33 588/K/23 2010-2011 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 34 589/K/23 2011-2012 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 13.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 35 590/K/23 2013-2014 Tharur 30.06.2022 u/s 250 23.04.2015 271(1)(c) Bhaskaran 2. The Registry has pointed out that