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

45,86,229/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income from investments made with Cooperative Banks. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting in consequence of misreporting of income was initiated in the course of the assessment proceedings. Notice u/s 274 read with section 270A of the Act was issued

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

reassessment proceedings, the claim of set off of brought forward loss was examined. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of Section 72AA of the Act applies to the banking companies and do not apply to Regional Rural Banks and further provisions of Section 72AB of the Act, through which brought forward of loss on account

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

reassessment proceedings, the claim of set off of brought forward loss was examined. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of Section 72AA of the Act applies to the banking companies and do not apply to Regional Rural Banks and further provisions of Section 72AB of the Act, through which brought forward of loss on account

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.

Section Issue Grounds 1. 147 Order not as That the reassessment order per law passed by the learned AO u/s. 147 of the Act dated 31-03-2022 is ab initio void, ultra vires and null in law. 5 2. 147 Order not as That on the facts of the case and per law in law, the order passed

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

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

45,925/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated\n28.03.2015. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of\nthe Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which was complied with by e\nassessee by filing the return of income declaring

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

M/S FANCY ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 32, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Fancy Enterprises Ao,Circle-2 2, Ganesh Chandra, Income Tax Office Avenue, Bentick Street, 10B Middleton, Calcutta Vs. Commerce House West Bengal-700071 West Bengal-700 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaff5111B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024

Section 143(3) on 26th March, 2016, assessing income at ₹45,46,997/-. Subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer based on the information from the investigation wing about the alleged bogus purchase made by the assessee from various concerns, recorded the reasons for the alleged bogus purchase of ₹70,70,117/-, from three private limited companies alleged to be shell companies

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

45,925/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated\n28.03.2015. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of\nthe Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which was complied with by e\nassessee by filing the return of income declaring

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MEENAKSHI MERCANTILES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-11(1), Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited Kolkata Room No 504, Woodburn Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, P-7, Central, 5A,Bibhabati Bose, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Sarani Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Westbengal-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm1113E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Smt. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025

reassessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act.” 08. We also note that the facts relating to the above said issue as raised by the assessee under rule 27 are already available in the assessment and appeal folder. Further, the ld. CIT (A) has already recorded a finding that expenditure incurred as PMS expense is allowable as deduction since

THE DCIT, 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

reassessment under Section 147/148 of the Act also becomes academic once the conclusion is arrived at that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act was not available to the assessee for these Assessment Years. 26. The substantial questions of law framed above are thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held

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

reassessment under Section 147/148 of the Act also becomes academic once the conclusion is arrived at that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act was not available to the assessee for these Assessment Years. 26. The substantial questions of law framed above are thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reassessment proceedings making the addition u/s. 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases from SDPL for the following amount: Assessment Year Amount 2011-12 Rs.2,69,76,121/- 2012-13 Rs.141,55,45,281/- 2013-14 Rs.19,28,62,081/- 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the legal issues

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reassessment proceedings making the addition u/s. 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases from SDPL for the following amount: Assessment Year Amount 2011-12 Rs.2,69,76,121/- 2012-13 Rs.141,55,45,281/- 2013-14 Rs.19,28,62,081/- 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the legal issues

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

reassessment proceedings making the addition u/s. 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases from SDPL for the following amount: Assessment Year Amount 2011-12 Rs.2,69,76,121/- 2012-13 Rs.141,55,45,281/- 2013-14 Rs.19,28,62,081/- 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed on the legal issues

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

reassessment order suffered from\ntechnical deficiencies for not having issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and hence the\nreassessment order set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) was void ab initio for want of valid\njurisdiction, as decided in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Bluemoon (2010) 321 ITR 362\n(SC).\"\n\n03. The facts in brief

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

45- 49). Hence departure from the literal rule\nshould only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there Should be judicial restraint in this\nconnection.\nAs observed by this Court in CIT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal; AIR 1950 SC 265:\n\"Hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the\nLegislature if such meaning

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

45- 49). Hence departure from the literal rule\nshould only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there Should be judicial restraint in this\nconnection.\nAs observed by this Court in CIT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal; AIR 1950 SC 265:\n11\nITA Nos. 2257, 2303, 2315 & 2316/Kol/2024 &\nITA Nos. 2399, 2400 & 2401/Kol/2024\nRungta Irrigation Ltd.\n\"Hardship or inconvenience