M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of bulk liquid cargo handling, storage and warehousing and trading activities. The assessee, for the year under consideration has earned dividend income of Rs. 21,82,188/- which is exempted u/s 10(34) of the Act but no expense was disallowed incurred in connection with the dividend income. Accordingly while assessment proceedings, AO worked out the expenses incurred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of bulk liquid cargo handling, storage and warehousing and trading activities. The assessee, for the year under consideration has earned dividend income of Rs. 21,82,188/- which is exempted u/s 10(34) of the Act but no expense was disallowed incurred in connection with the dividend income. Accordingly while assessment proceedings, AO worked out the expenses incurred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment starts only after serving of notice u/s 148 of the Act i.e. nine (9) months from the end of financial year in which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the 9 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Alembic Merchants P.Ltd assessee. Therefore, admittedly in this case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon

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\nproceedings u/s 147, vide Notice u/s148\n\nSir,\nThis is with reference to show cause notice dated 20.01.2022 providing reasons for issuance of\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act. In this connection we would like to submit as under.\n1. In this case, the retum of income was filed u/s 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total\nincome of Rs.8

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of blending & export of tea. The assessee, for the year under consideration has filed its return of income dated 08.10.2002 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2003. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny and accordingly assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2005 wherein the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of blending & export of tea. The assessee, for the year under consideration has filed its return of income dated 08.10.2002 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2003. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny and accordingly assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2005 wherein the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of blending & export of tea. The assessee, for the year under consideration has filed its return of income dated 08.10.2002 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2003. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny and accordingly assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2005 wherein the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business of blending & export of tea. The assessee, for the year under consideration has filed its return of income dated 08.10.2002 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2003. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny and accordingly assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2005 wherein the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

reassess such income. Thereafter the appellant would like to submit that reason to believe being the foremost criteria for reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act, it should be interpreted in the right perspective. 'Reason to believe' cannot be reason to suspect merely. There must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice

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"

reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above vis a vis facts of the assessee’s case , we are of the considered view that the AO has not formed a prima facie and independent belief on the reasons recorded that income has escaped assessment but reopened the assessment only

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"

reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above vis a vis facts of the assessee’s case , we are of the considered view that the AO has not formed a prima facie and independent belief on the reasons recorded that income has escaped assessment but reopened the assessment only

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

reassessment, there is no need to\nadjudicate other grounds.”\n(d) Recently The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of 'Shyam Sunder\nKhandelwal v. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)', had held that:\n\"Section 153A, read with sections 148 and 153C, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961\nSearch and seizure Assessment in case of (Section 153C

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. 8. The first aspect which needs to be examined is as to whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present appeals in which he has challenged the validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the 11 Shri Udit Kumar

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

u/s 132(1) on some other person. The case of the assessee find force from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Sejal Jewellary and Anr. Vs. Union & Ors and Others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under:- “12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

business of railway track manufacturing. For the relevant Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 27.10.2007 showing total loss of Rs. 24,23,855/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 147/143(1) and the reasons recorded

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

business of railway track manufacturing. For the relevant Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 27.10.2007 showing total loss of Rs. 24,23,855/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 147/143(1) and the reasons recorded

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

business of railway track manufacturing. For the relevant Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 27.10.2007 showing total loss of Rs. 24,23,855/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 147/143(1) and the reasons recorded

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

business of railway track manufacturing. For the relevant Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 27.10.2007 showing total loss of Rs. 24,23,855/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. I have also perused the assessment order u/s 147/143(1) and the reasons recorded