RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceeding is valid or otherwise, it is only to be seen that there was prima facie some material on record on the basis of which AO can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered or questioned at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the proceedings

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceeding is valid or otherwise, it is only to be seen that there was prima facie some material on record on the basis of which AO can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered or questioned at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the proceedings

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment proceeding is valid or otherwise, it is only to be seen that there was prima facie some material on record on the basis of which AO can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered or questioned at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the proceedings

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

147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) sought for remand report from the AO to verify whether the AO had issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act prior to the issuance of notice u/s. 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) found that no entry was made on the note sheet of the AO records and held that no notice

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.0L2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high value of non-cash transactions in the current account. As per the information obtained through bank officials the customers is a Gems and Jewellery Trader Transaction pattern shows that account get credit mainly by RTGS & transfer

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)

147 of the Act. In the reassessment, the Ld. AO disallowed the sum of Rs. 70,60,839/- (75,60,839 – 5,00,000) u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal against the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that the said proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objections and without independent application of mind by the AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 1(a),1(b)&1(c) taken hereinabove

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

properties one in Delhi and another in Kolkata as mentioned above and the capital gain pertinent to the above transaction was computed at Rs. 44,09,184/- u/s 50C . As per provision of section 54, the capital gain will be exempted for taxation if the assessee has within a period of one year before and two years after the date

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 9. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 14.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.553,79,34,548/- as against the total income of Rs.205,15,88,000/- declared by the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 9. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 14.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.553,79,34,548/- as against the total income of Rs.205,15,88,000/- declared by the assessee

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

House property. Net Annual Value is Gross\nAnnual Value less Municipal Taxes paid. In case the property is let out, its rent\nreceived is Gross Annual Value,\nIn view of the above, it is clear that standard deduction@ 30% is available u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

house property. Therefore, the Aa was justified in having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

house property. Therefore, the Aa was justified in having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

house property. Therefore, the Aa was justified in having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

House property. Net Annual Value is Gross\nAnnual Value less Municipal Taxes paid. In case the property is let out, its rent\nreceived is Gross Annual Value,\nIn view of the above, it is clear that standard deduction@ 30% is available u/s\n24 of the IT Act, 1961 only on Rent received and not on Electricity Recovery.\nService Charges