BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

166 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai811Delhi566Jaipur309Ahmedabad265Chennai255Kolkata166Hyderabad164Bangalore163Chandigarh120Pune96Indore87Rajkot82Raipur63Nagpur63Surat57Amritsar54Cochin46Agra41Guwahati40Visakhapatnam36Lucknow29Jodhpur28Patna24Ranchi17Cuttack7Dehradun7Allahabad7Jabalpur3Varanasi2Panaji2

Key Topics

Section 147155Section 148140Addition to Income85Section 6883Section 143(3)78Reassessment49Section 25045Section 143(2)40Reopening of Assessment40

SHRI FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia........................................………...…..…Appellant 4A, Sayed Sally Street, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adfpc9919G] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 When The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3)/147 On 26.12.2018 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

unexplained investment. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained the source of the aforesaid investment in the shares and the Assessing

Showing 1–20 of 166 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 26334
Unexplained Cash Credit34
Section 13128

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1551/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1555/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1552/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1364/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1365/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1367/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1368/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1554/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1363/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2071/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 13/01/2023 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of Act showing same income of Rs.4,18,940/- as computed u/s 44AD on presumptive basis and disclosed in return of income u/s 139(4) of Act. Accordingly

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2069/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 13/01/2023 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of Act showing same income of Rs.4,18,940/- as computed u/s 44AD on presumptive basis and disclosed in return of income u/s 139(4) of Act. Accordingly

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2070/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 13/01/2023 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of Act showing same income of Rs.4,18,940/- as computed u/s 44AD on presumptive basis and disclosed in return of income u/s 139(4) of Act. Accordingly

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2066/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 13/01/2023 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of Act showing same income of Rs.4,18,940/- as computed u/s 44AD on presumptive basis and disclosed in return of income u/s 139(4) of Act. Accordingly

ISHTIYAQUE AHMED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2067/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 13/01/2023 and the assessee filed his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of Act showing same income of Rs.4,18,940/- as computed u/s 44AD on presumptive basis and disclosed in return of income u/s 139(4) of Act. Accordingly

ARYAN PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-2(1), Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shantipally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagca2975B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

unexplained investment or cash credit for its relevant assessment year 1993-94 5. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount

SATABDI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA

ITA 1787/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(2) Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shanti Pally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs8130L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

unexplained investment or cash credit for its relevant assessment year 1993-94 5. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount

ALCO SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

reassessment proceeding u/s 148A of the Act to examine the sale of investments in that year pursuant to a information from the DDIT Investigation 1(1), Kolkata and the ld. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolkata, after taken into account the facts and details and after making enquiries, dropped the proceeding by passing an order u/s 148A

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 606/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unexplained deposits in its bank account of and of making undisclosed investment in property, cannot be faulted. As regards, the contention of the appellant that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and therefore the reassessment

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 607/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unexplained deposits in its bank account of and of making undisclosed investment in property, cannot be faulted. As regards, the contention of the appellant that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and therefore the reassessment