SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

43,300/- on account of short-term capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares of M/s Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited, controlled and manage Shri Shah. The assessment was framed by the AO was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessment framed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment, there is no need to\nadjudicate other grounds.”\n(d) Recently The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of 'Shyam Sunder\nKhandelwal v. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)', had held that:\n\"Section 153A, read with sections 148 and 153C, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961\nSearch and seizure Assessment in case of (Section 153C

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

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

43,036/- under section 270A at the rate of 50 percent of tax payable on under-reported income is not sustained. Further, the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 1,00,18,578/- under section 270A at the rate of 200 percent of tax payable on under-reporting in consequence of misreported income is also not sustained

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

43,19,63,692/-\n7\nWhether the main provision of section 147 or its\nfirst proviso is applicable.\nThe first proviso of provision of section 147 is applicable.\n8\nWhether the assessment proposed to be made for\nfirst time. If the reply is in the affirmative please\nstate:\nNo\n(a) Whether any voluntary return had already been\nfiled;\nand

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

43,19,63,692/-\nassessment:\n7 Whether the main provision of section 147 or its The first proviso of provision of section 147 is applicable.\nfirst proviso is applicable.\n8 Whether the assessment proposed to be made for No\nfirst time. If the reply is in the affirmative please\nstate:\n(a) Whether any voluntary return had already been\nYes

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]

43 of Finance Act 2021, old Section 149 of the Act was substituted with effect from April 1, 2021 without any savings clause. The new Section 149 laid down new time limits for issue of notice under the new Section 148 of the Act. As such, the first proviso to the new Section 149(1) of the Act stipulated that

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]

43 of Finance Act 2021, old Section 149 of the Act was substituted with effect from April 1, 2021 without any savings clause. The new Section 149 laid down new time limits for issue of notice under the new Section 148 of the Act. As such, the first proviso to the new Section 149(1) of the Act stipulated that

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

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

43 SOT 544 (Delhi)/[2011] 135 TTJ 513 (Delhi).\n5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal)/446

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

43) does not include penalty or interest. Similarly, under section 157, it is provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand as prescribed. Provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

5. Assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners viz., Shri Lokenath Bhattacharya and Shri Somnath Bhattacharya having equal shares in profit and loss of the firm. Assessee filed its return of income on 07.09.2009 reporting total income of Rs.1,84,45,230/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 19.01.2011. Subsequently, case of the assessee was taken

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

43,237 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.96,707 on account of payment of commission and brokerage by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

43,237 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.96,707 on account of payment of commission and brokerage by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

43,237 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.96,707 on account of payment of commission and brokerage by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

43,237 on account of payment of license fees by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.96,707 on account of payment of commission and brokerage by the Appellant which may kindly be deleted

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 order u/s 147 of the Act should have been passed within 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served i.e. within 31-03-2022. The assessment order was served on the assessee at its registered email id only on 16-04-2022, thus the assessment order is ante-dated

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 are in challenge before us. The assessee- company has filed its return under section 139(1) of the Act on 21.09.2011 and processed u/s 143(1)(a) and the notice for reopening has been issued on 28.03.2016 under section 148 of the Act. Though reasons recorded have been extracted supra but for the sake

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

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

43 SOT 544 (Delhi)/[2011] 135 TTJ 513 (delhi). (5) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT -vs.- Swati Bajaj reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 353 (Cal.)/446

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