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

56(4), pursuant to the transfer order dated 06/04/2009. This is also a fact that both the AO's have never issued any notice u/s.143(2) within the prescribed period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. In the present case, the ITO, Ward 3(1), having no jurisdiction over

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

56(4), pursuant to the transfer order dated 06/04/2009. This is also a fact that both the AO's have never issued any notice u/s.143(2) within the prescribed period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. In the present case, the ITO, Ward 3(1), having no jurisdiction over

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment pursuant to the first revisional order of the first Ld. Pr. CIT dated 02.02.2016 which impugned action of the Ld. Second pr. CIT is without satisfying the requisite condition precedent as stipulated in section 263 of the Act and so bad in law. According to Shri Miraj D Shah, the first Ld. Pr. CIT while passing first revisional order

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment order vide para 4(v) of his order. The specific directions of First Ld. Pr CIT to AO are as under: 17 Bridhi Distributors Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 (i) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the assessee; ii) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank

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

56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be made for the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19 as the purchase/sale/transfer of the said rice mill took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017- 18 and not in the assessment year 2018-19 ? b. Whether Ld. ITAT erred in law in not appreciating that

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]

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no addition can be made on any ground other than those on the basis of which the case was re-opened. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and considered factual matrix involved in the present case. Assailing

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

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.

56,000/-had escaped assessment. A consequential notice of even date i.e., 29-7-2022 was also issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the Act. 3.5 A perusal of the order under section 148A (d) and the notice under section 148 would show that they have been passed/issued after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will not be applicable upon the purchasers. 6. On the other hand, ld. D/R relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. The assessee has put reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

reassessment order vide para 4(v) of his order. The specific directions of First Ld Pr CIT to AO are as under: (i) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the assessee; ii) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the investors; iii) AO to examine

JAYA BOTHRA,PURBA BARDDHAMAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

56(4), Kolkata, the assessment order passed by him is a nullity and without jurisdiction? 5. We have heard Mr. Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Atasi Sarkar for the respondent/assessee. 6. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction over

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Shrigirishagrawal, Am]

reassessment order that he has examined the details furnished before him. And that he has verified the identity, creditworthiness &genuinety of share subscribers as well as the source of fund. And he has recorded in his re-assessment/second assessment order that ShriVinay Kumar Singh, A.R of the assessee company appeared and produced the books of account and bank statement

M/S. ARMAN ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

reassessment order vide para 4(v) of his order. The specific directions of First Ld Pr CIT to AO are as under: (i) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the assessee; ii) To carry out proper examination of the books of accounts and bank account of the investors; iii) AO to examine

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]

56,924/-. So, for 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

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMICUS HEALTHCARE SERVICES & SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

56 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta laid down guidelines on the manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the principle which has been laid down

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

reassessment proceedings initiated after the finalisation of the accounts.” Thus the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Court cannot be applied in the instant case before us. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We uphold accordingly. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 30. Next issue raised by Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation