ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

4) was pending. In this case, the return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees of H. E. H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

41,95,000/- by way of unexplained interest\nexpenditure under section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

41,95,000/- by way of unexplained interest\nexpenditure under section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

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.

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

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

41, 43 and 44 of the Finance Act, 2021, which came into force on April 1, 2021, as per Section 2(a) thereof, the old Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 stood repealed/abrogated and replaced by a new set of provisions. Further, by Section 42, a new Section 148A was inserted also with effect from April 1, 2021. By Section

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

41, 43 and 44 of the Finance Act, 2021, which came into force on April 1, 2021, as per Section 2(a) thereof, the old Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 stood repealed/abrogated and replaced by a new set of provisions. Further, by Section 42, a new Section 148A was inserted also with effect from April 1, 2021. By Section

ALCO SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

reassessment proceeding u/s 148A of the Act to examine the sale of investments in that year pursuant to a information from the DDIT Investigation 1(1), Kolkata and the ld. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolkata, after taken into account the facts and details and after making enquiries, dropped the proceeding by passing an order u/s 148A

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

41,00,000/- from 4 Private Limited Companies which was nothing but only accommodation entries. The AO called upon the assessee to furnish the return of income within 30 days but the furnished the return of income in compliance 23.03.2021which was not within the time allowed in the notice of 30 days. However, the same was filed within

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

4,56,48,227/-, however the same was not shown as income in return of income filed u/s 139 or u/s 153A for the year under consideration. The assessee was required to include the refund of VAT in the taxable income, but same was not done. Therefore I am convinced that the assessee suppressed its income & reduce tax liabilities