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

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) ..

36 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal inter alia held that: "6.5 The CUP method provides the most direct comparison for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of international transactions and is to be preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies

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

36,420/-. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that a sum of ₹42,61,133/- was received from Ambika Ispat Udyog as accommodation entry without delivering any goods. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee

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

36,420/-. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that a sum of ₹42,61,133/- was received from Ambika Ispat Udyog as accommodation entry without delivering any goods. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee

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

v) Torrent Power SEC Ltd. –vs.-ACIT – 45 taxmann.com 443 (Gujarat)- Order dated 12.03.2014; (vi) Nimitaya Hotel & Resorts Ltd. –vs.- ACIT – 109 taxmann.com 185 (delhi)- Order daed 01.04.2019; (vii) Arvind Sahdeo Gupta –vs.- ITO – 153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay) – Order dated 08.08.2023; (viii) Ferrous Infra Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- DCIT- 63 taxmann.com 201 (Delhi)- Order dated 21.05.2015. Sr. 1 to 8 (index

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 :-

v. DCIT in IT Appeal No.2517/Kol/2019, dated 03-02-2021 wherein the Tribunal by further relying upon various other decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment

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)(va) of the Act and another sum of ₹ 45,236/-, which was required to be disallowed as per Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of section

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

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

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

v. CIT 2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Del) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom) have taken a view that Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules will apply only for A.Ys. 2008-09 and subsequent assessment years. It has also been laid down that the assessee

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

36. It was submitted that in the case of the Assessee, GRSE has not gained any technical knowledge, skill, etc. as a result of service provided to it, which can be subsequently utilized by it. Thus, payments made by it, for services provided do not fall within the scope of FTS, as laid out in Article

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

36. It was submitted that in the case of the Assessee, GRSE has not gained any technical knowledge, skill, etc. as a result of service provided to it, which can be subsequently utilized by it. Thus, payments made by it, for services provided do not fall within the scope of FTS, as laid out in Article

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

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

36 ( P & H ) (FB). Similarly, in framing an assessment time period/limitation period as prescribed in Act on date of issue of notice would apply and not on the date of service of such notice as held in the case of C.B Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd v. ADIT (2012) 208 Taxmann 322 (Delhi). Further, in the case of CIT v. Major