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.

4 points raised by him in the notice issued under section 263 were considered in the reassessment proceedings and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 relied upon by the assessee was not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards the 20 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Any Other Issue.

58,168/- (u/s 69A of the Act) and addition of Rs. 2,12,87,500/- (u/s 68 of the Act). Aggrieved with this, the assessee has approached the Ld. CIT(A) were also he could not succeed on either of the issues. 2 K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 Thereafter, the assessee is seen to have approached the ITAT with

M/S KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

reassess the income of the assessee vide order dated 13.03.2014 passed u/s. 263 of the Act, which is as under: 3 M/s. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., AY 2009-10 6. Consequent to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act the assessee filed appeal before ITAT vide ITA No. 1094/Kol/2014. In the meantime, the AO framed consequential assessment

D.C.I.T CC - XIII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TANTIA CONSTRACTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

58 & 60/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 & I.T(SS).A No. 59,61 & 62/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Tantia Constructions Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN:AABCT0811E) Central Circle-XIII, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 69 to 71/Kol/2013 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Tantia Constructions

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment and initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. b) That the original assessment having been completed u/s. 143(3), initiation of re- assessment proceeding beyond four years period was invalid in law without establishing the failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully & truly all material facts for its assessment for the relevant

LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD37(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.01/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Sparsh”4Th Floor, 35/8, Ward-37(3), Kolkata- Poddopukur Road, Kolkata- 700001 700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acvpa 3271 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Subhro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, In Appeal No.1219/Cit(A)- Xxiv/Set-Aside/37(3)/12-13, Dated 19.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee’S Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Assessed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Detected That The Assessee Invested In A Property & Not Shown The Amount Of Capital Gain Of Rs.13,45,760/-. Therefore, The Ao Presumed That There Was An Excess Claim Of Rs.13,45,760/- U/S.54F Of It Act. Hence, Believing The Reason That Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment For The Year, The Ao Has Issued Notice U/S.148/147 Of The It Act. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Invested In A Property & Thus Claimed The Excess Amount

reassessment u/s.147/148 was without jurisdiction, illegal and without any tangible material. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that reopening u/s.147 of the Act and belief of the AO that the income has escaped assessment is entirely wrong. The AO believed that the assessee invested in property and capital gain thereof Rs.13,45,760/- ( Excess exemption claimed

JAS EQUIPMENTS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2,, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

58,183/- and reassessed income under section 143(3) read with section 147 at Rs.1,56,98,303/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 4

JAS EQUIPMENTS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2,, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

58,183/- and reassessed income under section 143(3) read with section 147 at Rs.1,56,98,303/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 4

SUKDEV SEN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR. 61, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

58, Navi Mumbai-400706. [PAN: BNDPS4119K] vs. ACIT, Circle-61, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. S. Gupta, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 26, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 24th April , 2024 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

GAUTAM CHAND KANKARIA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

4. After the explanation of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition on account of alleged bogus billing entry in an assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 23.12.2019. 5. Ld. Commissioner perused the assessment record and formed an opinion that assessment order passed on 31.12.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial

AJAY GOEL, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MANJU GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

58,000/- was added to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT

EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the land, in question, was stock-in-trade and not being a capital asset, therefore, consideration/deemed consideration/market value on transfer of the said land was not assessable under the head ‘long-term capital gains’ and that the I.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2014-15 Emporis

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

reassess the income accordingly. The decision of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Niraj Jindal of Delhi High Court which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also interpreted the same and holds that once notice under section 153A is issued and appellant files returns before the assessing officer, the earlier return filed by the appellant becomes

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

4(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition, by one Madan Mohan Lal, filed on behalf of the respondents. From the facts it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment. In 24 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 the aforesaid view

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was correct and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal. Therefore

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was correct and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal. Therefore