BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellers or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required

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

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,294/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,58,970/- and the addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56,294/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,58,970/- and the addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was made. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the sum of actual cash and other deposits

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

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

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

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated

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

M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ACIT, C.C. - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

56,422/- on the amount of income disclosed u/s. 132(4) ITA Nos. 921 & 922/Kol/2011-C-JM 1 M/s. Dhansar Engg.P.Ltd and included in the return filed u/s. 153A. The penalty levied is wrong and need to be deleted.” ITA No. 922/Kol/2011 A.Y 2006-07 ( by the assessee) 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “That

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 147 of the\n\nPage | 21\n\n24\nITA No.2695/KOL/2024\n\nPage\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. has to apply his mind to the information, if any,\ncollected and must from a belief thereon. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the\ncivil appeal. The department was not entitled to reopen the assessment.\nIn this regard, reference

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.

reassessment notice for the A.Y.2016-17 was to be dealt as under :- Fresh notice u/s. 148 can be issued with approval of the specified authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of New Section 149 since AY 2016-17 is within the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Specified authority u/s.151

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

56,000 shares of face value Rs. 10/- were issued at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share and on paper Rs. 3.56 crore was raised. This was again only on paper as the subscribers were only other paper companies of Shri Mahawar and the subscription was through circular transactions. In March, 2010 again 12,08,000 shares

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income admitted Income Income assessed Net tax payable u/s 139(1) disclosed u/s u/s 153A u/s 153A (Rs.) 153A

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

56,46,339/-. The A.O. had accepted the disclosures made by the Assessee and assessed the Assessee as under :- Asst.Year Income admitted Income Income assessed Net tax payable u/s 139(1) disclosed u/s u/s 153A u/s 153A (Rs.) 153A

M/S. SKYLARK FISCAL SEVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56,626/-. In the assessment completed 1 A.Y. 2009-2010 M/s. Skylark Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 19.12.2011, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.13,27,872/- after making an addition of Rs.2,71,246/- by treating the trading liability of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHAS SASTRI, KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56,865/- 2003-2004 Rs. 6,04,485/- 2004-2005 Rs.26,14,026/- 2005-2006 Rs.11,24,214/- 3. The penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for all the five years under consideration were challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made on behalf

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

56,701/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed at Rs. 2,84,15,638/- vide order dated 14.02.2019. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices from

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