ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. PERFECT WAHERS & FASTENERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

35 have been carefully considered\nand adjudicated as under:\n6.3 The appellant, is company, has filed his return of income for the\n Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total Income of\nRs.1,34,100/-. An information was received by the AO that the appellant\nwas identified as a beneficiary from search on entry operator Sanjiv Kumar\nSingh. Further

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

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 proceedings has been laid down is reproduced below: "When a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is issued, the proper course of action is to file the return and, if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

35,43,352/-. Thereafter, the AO noted that\nassessment framed revealed that the gross rent was aggregate of rent,\nelectricity charges recovery, service charges and permission fee and thus\nthe assessee has claimed excess standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act @\n30% on the receipts other than the rent also and thus income has\nescaped assessment. We note that

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 143 (2), this court notices that the omission renders the assessment (or reassessment as in this case) void a proposition of law enunciated in Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362. 12. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned reassessment notice and all consequent proceedings- including the reassessment order-have to be and are, hereby

SEIKH ABDUL SABIR GOLAHAT NIMTALA MASJID,BURDWAN vs. CIT(A), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 309/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Seikh Abdul Sabir, Golahat Nimtala Masjid,……………………………Appellant P.O. Sripally, Dist. Purba Bardhaman-713101, W.B. [Pan:Azaps9812M] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Burdwan, Near Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 04, 2024 O R D E R

35,26,978/-. Original assessment was made on 31.12.2008 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income at Rs.8,21,119/-. The assessment thereafter was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and a reassessment

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

35,43,352/-. Thereafter, the AO noted that\nassessment framed revealed that the gross rent was aggregate of rent,\nelectricity charges recovery, service charges and permission fee and thus\nthe assessee has claimed excess standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act @\n30% on the receipts other than the rent also and thus income has\nescaped assessment. We note that

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. In response, the office of the ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata had provided the same under the covered letter dated 14.07.2021. The Ld. AR submitted that on perusal of the sanctioned/approved proforma a copy of which is filed at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book filed by the AO in terms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

35 days and the revenue has filed separate petitions for condonation of the delays. After going over the said petitions, we find sufficient reasons behind such delays and consequently, the delays in filing both the appeal are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 M/s Amluckie Investment Company Ltd 3. ITA No.2541/Kol/2025

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

35 days and the revenue has filed separate petitions for condonation of the delays. After going over the said petitions, we find sufficient reasons behind such delays and consequently, the delays in filing both the appeal are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 M/s Amluckie Investment Company Ltd 3. ITA No.2541/Kol/2025

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceeding under the said clause (c).[Para 29] The deeming provision as provided in sub-section (1B) was inserted by the Parliament on account of certain judgments after taking note of the judicial pronouncement. [Para 29] Thus, sub-section (1B) of Section 271 creating

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceeding under the said clause (c).[Para 29] The deeming provision as provided in sub-section (1B) was inserted by the Parliament on account of certain judgments after taking note of the judicial pronouncement. [Para 29] Thus, sub-section (1B) of Section 271 creating

M/S R.S.DARSHAN SINGH MOTORS CAR FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 6.1. In the present case, evidently the assessee received

SHREEKANT RAY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act was passed by the AO at the total income of Rs. 1,05,46,917/- by making an addition of Rs. 94,14,477/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the finding

M/S SUNCITY NIKETAN PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, vii. that the said notice has been issued merely on suspicion and not on believe and we object to such Issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act 1961 and request your good self to drop the said proceedings under the act after verifying the information at your end. Please

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 80P of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Page 35 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. 24. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserve to be allowed and the appeals