DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.11.2019 at the premises of the assessee group including the premise of the assessee company and in survey various incriminating documents/ materials were found and impugned. The A.O. has further stated that the assessment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the findings of the survey. But, Ironically

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.11.2019 at the premises of the assessee group including the premise of the assessee company and in survey various incriminating documents/ materials were found and impugned. The A.O. has further stated that the assessment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the findings of the survey. But, Ironically

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.11.2019 at the premises of the assessee group including the premise of the assessee company and in survey various incriminating documents/ materials were found and impugned. The A.O. has further stated that the assessment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the findings of the survey. But, Ironically

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.11.2019 at the premises of the assessee group including the premise of the assessee company and in survey various incriminating documents/ materials were found and impugned. The A.O. has further stated that the assessment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the findings of the survey. But, Ironically

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

survey, some papers with\nidentification mark SKB/1 and 2 were found from the assessee and\nCUML/1 and 2 from Citizen Umbrella were impounded. Statement of\nthe assessee was recorded u/s 133A on 20.2.2020 wherein the\nassessee admitted having given initial\nloan of Rs. 1.60 crores as\nnoted by the AO vide para 5.4.8 (Page 48 of assessment order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss of ₹10,17,55,446/- on 21.04.2021. The assessee filed the original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2015 declaring the loss

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss of ₹10,17,55,446/- on 21.04.2021. The assessee filed the original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2015 declaring the loss

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss of ₹10,17,55,446/- on 21.04.2021. The assessee filed the original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2015 declaring the loss

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss of ₹10,17,55,446/- on 21.04.2021. The assessee filed the original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 18.09.2015 declaring the loss

B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1863/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by the Department and it was found that the assessee had deposited money with Nissan Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd.(NDPPL) for an amount of Rs. 59,42,709/-. The AO treated this NDPPL company as a specified person of the assessee. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee

ACIT, CIR. 2(1), JALPAIGURI vs. SHRI BHOLANATH AGARWAL, COOCHBEHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

133A of the Act on 18.07.2015 at the business premises of the assessee during which the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 8,00,20,013/- which comprised of undisclosed cash of Rs. 8,24,000/-, undisclosed stock of Rs. 3,91,81,368/- and bogus sundry debtors of Rs. 4,00,14,645/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed return

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

survey u/s. 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted at the office premises of the assessee on 18.02.2016. Notice u/s. 201(1)/206C(7) of the Act dated 22.02.2016 was issued on the assessee (the deductor) for FY 2009-10 for verification of documents and records relating to TDS/TCS. Certain defaults and discrepancies were observed in this proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DEHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

survey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material did not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was no compliance to the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer framed

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

survey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material did not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was no compliance to the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer framed

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

survey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material did not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was no compliance to the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer framed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

survey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material did not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was no compliance to the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer framed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

survey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. The Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material did not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was no compliance to the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer framed

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment order be quashed. 14. For that the sanction u/s 151 of the IT Act 1961 before the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 was mechanical and without application of proper mind and the sanction was bad in law and hence the reopening be held to be bad in law. 15. For that the facts