DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

disallowed the sum of Rs.21.69 crores (Rs.26.69 cr - Rs.5 Cr) claimed by the assessee under the head Business Income in his order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act dated 31-03-2022. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee before the learned

STAR TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

147. 4.1. Reassessment was completed by making disallowance of preliminary expenses and addition on miscellaneous income at total assessed income of Rs.50,484/- vide order dated 3 Star Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., AY 2009-10 27.03.2010. Subsequently, on examination of assessment records, Ld. CIT, Kolkata-III, Kolkata held that the said reassessment order u/s

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

disallowance made u/s. 14A. 6. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, delete or substitute any of the grounds and/or take additional grounds before or at any time of hearing of this appeal.” A perusal of the above grounds of appeal would reveal that the revenue has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions citing factual

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

147 ITD 323 wherein it was held that such mark to market losses are allowable. Further the same stands allowable in view of the decision of Mumbai Special Bench in case of DCIT-vs-Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [6 taxman.com 110].\" I have perused the fact of the case and submission made by the appellant I agree with the view

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance was made. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2011-12 u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 and after looking into the matter, AO noted that 2 Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no undisclosed income

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

disallowances against which assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. ClT(A)-I/Kolkata, who allowed it. 6.3. Later, on 29.03.2012, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 and the reasons to belive recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

disallowances against which assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. ClT(A)-I/Kolkata, who allowed it. 6.3. Later, on 29.03.2012, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 and the reasons to belive recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda

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’).

u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceedings. He, in this respect, has made the following written submissions along with case laws: “2. The assessee relies on the following decisions in support of its contentions: a) In Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemet Family Trust vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC) wherein

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: 30th day of September 2007.

reassessment proceeding u/s 147, after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year, in a case where assessment u/s already been completed. 4 Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. 4.3.12 Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above and relevant laws applicable in this case, I am of firm view that the depreciation claim

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.138.16 lacs u/s. 37(1) of the Act on account of excess salary paid to the director which is prohibited u/s. 197(9) of the Companies Act, 2013 after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been assumed invalidly

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

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3 Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. AY 2010-11 By holding these mistakes as mistakes apparent from record, which were rectified by passing an order u/s. 154 read with sec. 143(3) dated 27.09.2013 with a demand of Rs.6,91,050/-. 4.1. Later, a survey u/s. 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the 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

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the 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

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the 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

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the 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

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

147 ITD\n323 wherein it was held that such mark to market losses are allowable.\nFurther the same stands allowable in view of the decision of Mumbai Special\nBench in case of DCIT-vs-Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [6 taxman.com 110].\"\nI have perused the fact of the case and submission made by the appellant I\nagree with the view

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)

147 and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 citing the same issue involved as was in proceedings carried out u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the reassessment resulted in disallowance

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

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

147 ITD\n323 wherein it was held that such mark to market losses are allowable.\nFurther the same stands allowable in view of the decision of Mumbai Special\nBench in case of DCIT-vs-Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [6 taxman.com 110].\"\nI have perused the fact of the case and submission made by the appellant I\nagree with the view

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

147 ITD\n323 wherein it was held that such mark to market losses are allowable.\nFurther the same stands allowable in view of the decision of Mumbai Special\nBench in case of DCIT-vs-Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [6 taxman.com 110].\"\nI have perused the fact of the case and submission made by the appellant I\nagree with the view