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

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.96,37,85,635/- added as Short Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee on transfer of land property to the Partnership firm as their Capital Contribution, by holding that the provisions of section 45

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

reassessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 50,83,68,762/-. 4. The records of the assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was examined by the Principal CIT and on such examination, he found the following errors in the order of the A.O. passed under section 147/144/143(3) which according

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

2) of the Act. In this context, it is of utmost importance to look into the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the bare language of which reads as under: "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances> Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

2) of the Act. In this context, it is of utmost importance to look into the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the bare language of which reads as under: "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances> Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating

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

45 of the paper book. The counsel of the Assessee in that case hadcontended, at Para 7 of the Judgement, that "tax" does not include "Interest" and forthis proposition he relied on the Judgement of Apex Court in the case of HarshadShantilal Mehta. The Hon'ble High Court decided this issue in favour of the assessee.Please see Paras

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

2(1), Kolkata, vide communication cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in compliance in such directions. tions. 7.1. The Hon'ble Delhi

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

2(1), Kolkata, vide communication cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in cited. The reasons recorded are only based on such directions. The reopening was done in compliance in such directions. tions. 7.1. The Hon'ble Delhi

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

2 and 3 of his order. In Paragraph 1 on page 3, he refers to the fact that this seized/impounded document showed that two loans were taken by the appellant, Rs.40 lakhs from M/s Omkam Global and Rs. 50 lakhs from Peeyush Kumar Agarwal and the said amount was paid to M/s Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The same paragraph, however

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) ..

45,62,079/- made by ld TPO/AO, hence the ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. Ground Nos. 5 to 10 raised by the assessee are directed against the arm’s length price adjustment of Rs.3,58,02,269/-made in respect of payment of Information Technology (IT Service Cost), and Ground

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

45 Lakh each by way of agreement to sell dated 05.12.2015 and handed over the possession on 09.02.2026. Purchaser of the property namely IRC Natural Resources Private Limited became the member of the society by virtue of the said sale. The agreement for sale, possession letter and Society membership certificate, which is placed at Page

BRINDA DAGA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment.\n16. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com\n183 (SC) while adjudicating on section 292BB held that;\nAccording to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the\nproceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid, even if\nthere be infractions as detailed in said

M/S KHUSHI COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

2) of the Act as found by the Ld. Pr. CIT, the question of section 292BB coming to the rescue of the AO to pass the reassessment order does not arise. For this we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, Civil Appeal

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ MURARKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

reassessment purpose, it was regarded by the AO as the accumulated profit of M/s. Batlivala & Karani Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee was holding shares 41.84%, so according to AO, provision of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act applies in assessee’s case. 4. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the accumulated profit is in the negative

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