DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

92,232/-. Thereafter the PCIT upon examination of assessment records observed that the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reasons that the AO has not conducted any enquiry in respect of certain items appearing in the balance sheet

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

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

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) ..

92 otiose and the definition of 'internal transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from

DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAAN CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1193/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit,Cc-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maan Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccm 0388 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the total income as per the provisions of the Act irrespective of incriminating materials found in the search. The ld AO completed the assessment u/s 153A / 143(3) of the Act on 30.3.2015 determining the total income at Rs 1,92,11,460/- after making an addition

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

reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that\nAQ had independently applied his mind to arrive at a belief that the income had escaped\nassessment.\n12.25 Kolkata ITAT bench 'SMC' in Subodh Chandra Das vs. ITO, ITA no. 2246 &\n2247/Kol/2019, Mar 4, 2020 has held that reopening is bad in law, where there is\nnonapplication of mind

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years on the date of initiation of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The impugned assessment year is a year which falls within the period of six assessment years considering the date of search as 22.09.2011. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) were pending

M/S. DEVANSH EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of 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]

section 147 in pursuance of such invalid initiation is liable to be cancelled. I order accordingly.” 16. In the present case also the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only for the purpose of verification and examination which is not the scope of reassessment proceedings. It would be the case of rather reasons to suspect rather than reasons to belief

M/S TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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 total income taking note of undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during search – Held, yes (g) CIT-II Vs continental warehousing corporation 235 Taxman 568 (SC) The High Court by impugned order held that no addition can be made in respect of assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search or during 153A proceeding – Whether

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

92,014/-. Further the genuinity of the transaction cannot be doubted since the amount was received by account payee cheque and the same was also accepted after due verification in the original assessment. The AR further submitted that source of source is not required to be proved in case of cash credit and placed his reliance on various case laws

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

92,014/-. Further the genuinity of the transaction cannot be doubted since the amount was received by account payee cheque and the same was also accepted after due verification in the original assessment. The AR further submitted that source of source is not required to be proved in case of cash credit and placed his reliance on various case laws

M/S UMBIKA AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. LD. I.T.O. WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. Nos. 2059 To 2063/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 To 2005-06 & 2007-08 M/S. Umbika Agency.............................…………………………………………Appellant 14A/1A, Ultadanga Road, Kolkata – 700 004 [Pan : Aabfu 5344 E] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 41(1) Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata – 700 004 Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri R.P. Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 03, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2017 Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A) For A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 & Since Some Of The Issue Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being Ita No. 2059/Kol/2016 Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2016. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Of These Appeals Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs.

92,052/- only was unreasonable and excessive. He also held that the assessee had failed 3 I.T.A. No. 2059 to 2063/Kol/2016 M/s. Umbika Agency to establish the services rendered by the concerned parties to justify the payment of commission. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available

M/S UMBIKA AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. LD. I.T.O. WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. Nos. 2059 To 2063/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 To 2005-06 & 2007-08 M/S. Umbika Agency.............................…………………………………………Appellant 14A/1A, Ultadanga Road, Kolkata – 700 004 [Pan : Aabfu 5344 E] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 41(1) Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata – 700 004 Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri R.P. Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 03, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2017 Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A) For A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 & Since Some Of The Issue Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being Ita No. 2059/Kol/2016 Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2016. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Of These Appeals Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs.

92,052/- only was unreasonable and excessive. He also held that the assessee had failed 3 I.T.A. No. 2059 to 2063/Kol/2016 M/s. Umbika Agency to establish the services rendered by the concerned parties to justify the payment of commission. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available

M/S UMBIKA AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. LD. I.T.O. WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. Nos. 2059 To 2063/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 To 2005-06 & 2007-08 M/S. Umbika Agency.............................…………………………………………Appellant 14A/1A, Ultadanga Road, Kolkata – 700 004 [Pan : Aabfu 5344 E] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 41(1) Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata – 700 004 Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri R.P. Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 03, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2017 Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A) For A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 & Since Some Of The Issue Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being Ita No. 2059/Kol/2016 Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2016. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Of These Appeals Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs.

92,052/- only was unreasonable and excessive. He also held that the assessee had failed 3 I.T.A. No. 2059 to 2063/Kol/2016 M/s. Umbika Agency to establish the services rendered by the concerned parties to justify the payment of commission. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available

M/S UMBIKA AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. LD. I.T.O. WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. Nos. 2059 To 2063/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 To 2005-06 & 2007-08 M/S. Umbika Agency.............................…………………………………………Appellant 14A/1A, Ultadanga Road, Kolkata – 700 004 [Pan : Aabfu 5344 E] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 41(1) Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata – 700 004 Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri R.P. Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 03, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2017 Order These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A) For A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 & Since Some Of The Issue Involved Therein Are Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First We Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2002-03 Being Ita No. 2059/Kol/2016 Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2016. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Of These Appeals Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs.

92,052/- only was unreasonable and excessive. He also held that the assessee had failed 3 I.T.A. No. 2059 to 2063/Kol/2016 M/s. Umbika Agency to establish the services rendered by the concerned parties to justify the payment of commission. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available

M/S. DEVANSH EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, 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

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

92,538/- which was reduced by the learned CIT(A) by directing the AO to work out the disallowance after considering only those investments which have yielded the dividend income to the assessee during the year. However the assessee has challenged the applicability of the provisions of section 14A of the Act on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded