MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

reassessment proceedings was based on review of the same set of facts/details which were already on record before AO at the time of completion of original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.We note that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 44.45 lacs to its Profit & Loss account under the head "Repairs - Building" in schedule

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, HOOGLY, HOOGHLY vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MONDAL, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

91,788/-, for the Assessment Year 2008-09. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act, was conducted in the premises of M/s. Mondal Construction Company Ltd., the sole proprietary concerned of the assessee, on 24/01/2008. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, was issued on 26/05/2011, reopening the assessment u/s 147. The Assessing Officer at para 3 of his order

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.

reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 empowers the Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the revenue.' A mere change in the opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147." The above case

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

section 148 of the Act as it is void-ab-initio.” 4. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata as bad in law, observing as under: “5. OBSERVATION & DISCUSSION: The appellant company is a Non-Banking Finance Company registered with Reserve

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

91,28,908/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal. Aggrieved revenue is before us. The assessee also filed Cross Objection for the omission on the part of Ld. CIT(A) not to adjudicate the ground raised by the assessee that

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

91-33-2243 0271\nFax: (033) 40661036\nDated 17th December 2013\nTo,\nThe D. C. I. T.,\nCentral Circle - VI,\n3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,\n110, Shanti Palli,\nKolkata - 700 107\nSir,\n60\nSub: Furnishing of Information/document in respect of M/S Maithan Ceramic Ltd. for the Financial\nYear 2010-11 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.\nRef: Your letter

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

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

section 68 on account of unexplained cash credits. 7. On appeal, it was submitted by the assessee that reopening of assessment is not in accordance with law. The same information was available with the Department during the original assessment proceedings and no addition was made. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority in a detailed order running into around 96 pages accepted

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 142(1) of the Act framed the reassessment at a sum of Rs. 23,91,96,130/- by making

M/S MATERIALS CHEMICALS AND PERFORMANCE INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub- section

GLASSEYE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

91,000/- which was part of the reasons recorded before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, as transaction from M/s. MPS Greenery Developers Ltd. 1.1. Aggrieved with this action, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) and one of the grounds raised before him was the validity of proceedings when the entry recorded in the original reasons

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

91,040/- Mouza-Munsinath. Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-4113 5 09.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, 11,22,000/- 22,10,610/- Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-6129 6 06.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, 3,55,000/- 7,26,000/- Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no 6126 7 06.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath

BASUDEV SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

91 also do not prescribe timeline for filing of such declaration on or before due date of filing of ROI. Further rule 128 (4) clearly provides the condition where the foreign tax credit would not be allowed. Rule 128 (9) does not say that if prescribed form would not be filed on or before the due date of filing

VINEET BAHETY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

91 also do not prescribe timeline for filing of such declaration on or before due date of filing of ROI. Further rule 128 (4) clearly provides the condition where the foreign tax credit would not be allowed. Rule 128 (9) does not say that if prescribed form would not be filed on or before the due date of filing

VINEET BAHETY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

91 also do not prescribe timeline for filing of such declaration on or before due date of filing of ROI. Further rule 128 (4) clearly provides the condition where the foreign tax credit would not be allowed. Rule 128 (9) does not say that if prescribed form would not be filed on or before the due date of filing

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 144B of the Income-tax Act and never served on the assessee determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 93,45,920/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,45,920/- is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid, time barred and perverse being contrary to the facts and evidences on record. 3. That, the reassessment was initiated based

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

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." 15. The circumstances in which the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced by an amendment

R.K.MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 148 on 30.03.2016. The reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer read as under:- “An information has been received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata vide letter No. DDIT(Inv)/Kol/U-2(3)/FIU- 1000018036/2015-16/45802 dat4ed 21.03.2016, wherein it has been communicated that on verification of A/c No. 000601527711 & 000605019116 maintained by Shri Panchanan Mondal, 3 Assessment Year

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings were itself bad-in-law and non-est since notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued and served upon the assessee, we notice that in the body of the assessment order, it is stated by the ld. Assessing Officer that notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

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

91. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A;” I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd 12. The ld. counsel, in this