SHREEKANT RAY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. (b) Without prejudice to the above, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have restricted the addition u/s 2(22)(e) to Rs. 4,49,441/-, being the accumulated profit as on 31.3.2018. 3. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time

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, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor can anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever (surpa) has inter-alia, observed that “………….. it is needless to mention that the reasons are required

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.8.2003. The ld AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 18.11.2004 to the assessee. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee vide its letter dated 11.3.2005 filed a letter

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.8.2003. The ld AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 18.11.2004 to the assessee. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee vide its letter dated 11.3.2005 filed a letter

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

deemed as the credit belongs to earlier years and disallowed the same. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where the assessee challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer stating that the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 21.12.2020 questioning the deduction claimed u/s 80IC

A.C.I.T., CIR-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment needs to be quashed. 4.1.1. We have heard the rival submissions and we hold that while adjudicating whether the reopening of assessment is valid or not what is required to be seen is whether the Learned AO had any material at the stage of issue of notice on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BISHWANATH TEA CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

deemed to be income liable to tax.” 3. For AY 1999-2000 the Assessee filed return of income on 31.12.1999 declaring total income of Rs.10,54,32,770/-. An order of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 27.3.2002. One of the issue that arose for consideration before the AO in the assessment proceedings was the deduction allowable

DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY BUDHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1451/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act. Shri Sanjay Budhia Assessment Year: 2007-08 Therefore, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra (supra) on identical facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order dated 14.03.2024 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act ought to be declared bad in law. I.T.A. No.: 1164/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited. (iii) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the so-called information was not backed by any specific evidence / material in as much

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

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

Dividend Option 540105.38 Total Redemption 10114816.02 7.5. I therefore find that the source of investment in the mutual funds were from the redemption of the old investment in mutual funds. Thus the appellant has satisfactorily explained the source of investment in mutual funds. In the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act the appellant has also

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LTD. vs. C.I.T. I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

dividend income, under the head ‘income from business’. This plea of business income has been accepted by the ld AO while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 3.7.2008. Later this assessment was sought to be reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the following reasons :- It came to light that claim of assessee on insurance amounting

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. APEX ENTERPRISES (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

reassessments framed u/s 147 of the Act for these 4 years, the ld AO separately assessed the said sum of Rs. 54,06,301/- and again in the year under appeal (i.e AY 2003-04) added the same as a protective measure. The assessee submitted that the interest of RS. 54,06,301/- was not taxable either in Asst Years

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT MADHU DEVI SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1325/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Madhu Devi Saraf [Pan: Alips 0989 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

dividend to the tune of Rs. 1,69,63,044/- and interest from PPF amounting to Rs. 4,77,417/-. The assessee voluntarily disallowed the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on an ad hoc basis u/s 14A of the Act in the original return of income. In the original assessment, the Ld. AO observed that though the disallowance u/s

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

dividend to the assessee company for\nthe purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income