BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

set off of brought forward loss, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Reasons for initiation of proceedings was provided to the assessee and during the course of the reassessment

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

set off of brought forward loss, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Reasons for initiation of proceedings was provided to the assessee and during the course of the reassessment

SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

set off against the business income, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. It can be seen from ground no.2 raised by the assessee that the assessee has raised the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the AO to make the addition in respect of loss in trading in shares treating the speculation loss

DCIT,CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

set off against the business income, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. It can be seen from ground no.2 raised by the assessee that the assessee has raised the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the AO to make the addition in respect of loss in trading in shares treating the speculation loss

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

setting off the loss of the current year's or the brought forward business loss (and unabsorbed depreciation) against the s. 10A profits does not arise. In view of the fact of the case and the relevant circumstances, and the judgments applicable in the matter, I am inclined to agree with the view of the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN UDYOG LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed as rendered infructuous

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1776/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

set-off of carry forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. The main contention of the Assessing Officer is that in the immediately preceding A.Y. 2008-09, the return of income furnished by the assessee did not reflect the carry forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation to the extent claimed by the assessee in A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

loss of Rs. 20,17,97,265/-. Afterward, the assessee`s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of a report / information made available by Income Tax Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The said report stated that a search & seizure operation and post search investigation/ enquiry were carried out in the case of M/s Mandapam Commercial

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

loss of Rs. 20,17,97,265/-. Afterward, the assessee`s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of a report / information made available by Income Tax Investigation Wing, Kolkata. The said report stated that a search & seizure operation and post search investigation/ enquiry were carried out in the case of M/s Mandapam Commercial

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

reassessments were completed u/s 147/153A/143(3) of the Act. The AY 2014-15 was selected for regular scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In all these assessment orders for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 and 2014-15, the AO disallowed the losses incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions conducted

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

reassessment order the AO has treated the entire, loss suffered from Derivative transaction as speculative in nature by invoking explanation to Sec. 73 of the Act. I have gone through the submission of the appellant and order passed by the AO. All the transactions in which the appellant has incurred loss is in relation to derivative transactions. Derivative transactions

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

set- off of losses in the reassessment proceedings". In other words, reassessment must invariably be preceded by conclusion of the original

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]

loss account or not showing in the same in the Balance Sheet. Therefore the Ld. Counsel argued that the revisionary jurisdiction was wrongly invoked to set aside and cancel reassessment

SRI NEERAJ UMA SHANKAR MURARKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

set off against their profits with a view to reduce their tax liability. The details of such client code modification profits with a view to reduce their tax liability. The details of such client code modification profits with a view to reduce their tax liability. The details of such client code modification transactions have been provided in CD. On analysis

PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

setting off such bogus loss with the capital gain made from Compensation amount received from Haryana Govt. Perusal of aforesaid observations of the AO and finding of investigation wing shows that the Entry Operator Shri Anil Agarwal, who was the promoter of companies viz. M/s First Financial Services Ltd. and Rutron International, in his statement recorded

M/S. GIRISH ROLLED PRODUCTS & ALLOYS LTD., ,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, 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.2319/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Girish Rolled Products & Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Kolkata – 69. Alloys Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee City Centre, 4Th Floor, 63/2, The Mall, Square, Kolkata – 69. Kanpur- 208001 (U.P) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 0137 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

loss for A.Y.1998-99 of Rs.23,17,557/- has been set off in two parts (A.Y.2005-06 Rs.12,10,978/- and A.Y.2006-07 Rs.3,38,521/-. The balance of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.7,68,058/-, has been carried forwards which is not allowed as it has to be set off within eight Assessment Years succeeding the Assessment Year 1998-99. So, there

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

loss was not allowable to be set off u/s 72(1). This mistake in computation of income led to a under assessment of income”. 7. As per the proviso to section 147, where an assessment has been made for the relevant assessment year under section 143(3), no action shall be taken by the AO under section 147 after expiry

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

loss was not allowable to be set off u/s 72(1). This mistake in computation of income led to a under assessment of income”. 7. As per the proviso to section 147, where an assessment has been made for the relevant assessment year under section 143(3), no action shall be taken by the AO under section 147 after expiry

AMBUJA NEOTIA HEALTHCARE VENTURE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ambuja Neotia Healthcare Deputy Commissioner Of Venture Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-11(1), Vs. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia, Kolkata. Kolkata-700046. (Pan: Aaccn4806C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss at Rs. 24,42,58,745/- . Subsequently, the said assessment order was subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. On the basis of the verification of material available on records, it was found that the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2016 was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue