D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

reassessment proceedings were validly instituted.” 23. We thus note that before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Revenue had particularly argued that the provisions of Section 149(1)(c) were enacted to empower the Revenue to 19 ITA Nos. 1408 to 1412/Kol/2019 A.Y 2012-13 1672 to 1674/Kol/2018 & 1861 & 1862/Kol/2018 A.Ys

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

36,51,503/- 4. The Learned CITA appreciated the contentions of the assessee and the various case laws relied upon by the assessee deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for all the three years. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us for all the three years. The grounds raised for Asst Year

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(iii) of the Act…" 20. So far as the reliance by the ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Harshad Shantilal Mehta" (supra) is concerned, we find that the issue for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was entirely a different issue relevant to the interpretation

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(iii) of the Act…" 20. So far as the reliance by the ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Harshad Shantilal Mehta" (supra) is concerned, we find that the issue for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was entirely a different issue relevant to the interpretation

COAL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.413/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Coal India Ltd…………..………...................................................……Appellant Coal Bhawan, Premise No.4, Mar, Plot Af-Iii, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcc3929J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2023 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 07.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Come Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On Earlier Dates, Despite Several Notices, No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

36(1)(ii) read with section 43B(c) treating performance related pay as bonus payment; 2(a) Revised assessment order or reassessment

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) ..

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

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

1,15,00,000 received from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a loan, and subsequently classified it as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer

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

1,15,00,000 received from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a loan, and subsequently classified it as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the ground that the Learned Assessing Officer

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

HANUMAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

section (1). In the case before us, the assessment has been framed u/s. 143(3) by an AO whose jurisdiction is under challenge who at the threshold itself did not had the jurisdiction over the assessee for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the present case, both the notice issued u/s. 143(2) and the assessment completed

VANTAGE ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

reassessment order at pages 1& 2. 5. However, according to AO the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act could not be served upon the six (6) debtors, so he asked the assessee vide letter dated 30.09.2015 to show cause as to why the debtors be treated as ‘bogus’ as well as informed the assessee that pursuant to the notice

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.03.2023, and the expenditure claimed was required to be disallowed. Therefore, a sum of ₹ 17,03,551/- to be disallowed under section 36(1

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

36,092 cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. The conclusions to the contrary by the CIT(A) are not sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncements referred to above. 25. With regard to disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned, we find that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

reassessment proceedings has been quashed.\n5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue preferred an appeal before us.\nThe Ld. Sr. DR challenges the very impugned order thereby taking following grounds in the appeal:\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 was not deliberate/mala fide nor intentional nor does Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 the omission give rise to any undue benefit to the assessee, it is purely a legal ground and does not require any additional evidence, the additional ground of appeal is also admitted for adjudication as it goes to the root of the matter and is necessary

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 was not deliberate/mala fide nor intentional nor does Amit Khemka AYs: 2012-13 the omission give rise to any undue benefit to the assessee, it is purely a legal ground and does not require any additional evidence, the additional ground of appeal is also admitted for adjudication as it goes to the root of the matter and is necessary

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

36(1) (viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capable of any other interpretation, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration by this court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed No costs.” UCO Bank

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

36(1) (viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capable of any other interpretation, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration by this court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed No costs.” UCO Bank