DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

32 - ……. Page 33 - ….. Page 34 - ….. Pages 35 to 37 - …….. Pages 39 to 46 ……. Q. No. 19. Please go through the bunch of loose sheets marked HRV -10 and explain? Ans. This bound pages 1 to 53 relates to accounted and unaccounted transaction of M/s PPL. We find that the assessee had demonstrated the manner of deriving the undisclosed income

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

32. On the next objection of the ld Counsel of the assessee, we note that the action of the TPO/AO in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions under consideration without applying any of the methods prescribed under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2)of section 92C of the Act, which leads to violation

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

32,380/- and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 12,68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants

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

32,380/- and book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 12,68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act by the Finance Act 2012. Similar view was also taken by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case referred supra. Accordingly, the assessee submitted before the ld CIT that the ld AO’s order was in conformity with the view expressed in the aforesaid judicial decisions and therefore cannot be considered to be erroneous

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

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

1) Kol. Vs. Srei Capital Markets Ltd. Page 3 Ld. AR for the assessee before us challenged the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act vide covering letter dated 02.09.2009 by submitting that all the necessary material facts for the doubtful debts/ bad debts were available in the records of the Revenue. He further stated that

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

32 of the Act and submitted that depreciation @ 30% would be available on the moulds for the following conditions are satisfied: a. Moulds are owned by the company; b. Moulds are used for the purpose of company’s business; and c. Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber/plastic factory He argued that all the three conditions have been satisfied

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

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

32. Again reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) (288 ITR 408, SC), wherein it was held "That, in relation to offshore services, section 9(I)(vii)(c) required two conditions to be met: to be taxable in India the services which were

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

32. Again reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) (288 ITR 408, SC), wherein it was held "That, in relation to offshore services, section 9(I)(vii)(c) required two conditions to be met: to be taxable in India the services which were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

1) at the declared income of Rs. 4,200. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the amount of such transactions particularly that of Rs. 5,00,000 (as mentioned above) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of the proviso to Section 147 and clause (b) to the Explanation 2 of this section. Submitted

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

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

32 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. same therefore was rightly revised by the Ld. Principal CIT by his impugned order passed under section 263. He, therefore, strongly supported the order passed by the Ld. Principal CIT under section 263 and urged that the same may be upheld. 18. We have considered the rival submissions

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of ostensible transactions in hundi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

section 41(1) was not attracted to remission of principal amount of loan. In the instant case, the assessee has not got any deduction on account of acquisition of capital assets as the same has been reflected in the balance sheet and not in the P and L account, and also the remission of the principal amount of loan