AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 Order, presumed the entire deposits as trading receipts and by applying 8% estimated margin derived the additional total income at Rs. 18,58,785/-. b) The assessee would like to state that such calculation is made on an ad-hoc basis and is construed to be an act on the basis of certain presumption, conjecture and surmise. The assessee

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 Order, presumed the entire deposits as trading receipts and by applying 8% estimated margin derived the additional total income at Rs. 18,58,785/-. b) The assessee would like to state that such calculation is made on an ad-hoc basis and is construed to be an act on the basis of certain presumption, conjecture and surmise. The assessee

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

u/s 147 of the Act. The notice was unsigned both manually and digitally is invalid. The issue is covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavatar Bhardwaj in W.P. No. 9835 of 2022 dated 9.1.2023 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “8. We have heard the learned counsel

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 147 / 143(3) was ever received / served. c) that the initiation of the penalty proceedings was bad in law. d) that even otherwise, the impugned penalty had already been barred by the limitation. The ld JCIT however did not heed to the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty on the entire repayment of loans

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’).

reassessment proceedings ought to be given to it......." (emphasis supplied) 8.8. Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 lTD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

147 of the Act but not u/s 153A of the Act. When accepted by the AO then there is no concealment of income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act cannot be imposed. The concealment of income is to be determined with regard to the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A

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

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in response to such proceeding assessee filed a detailed reply. However, ld. AO was not satisfied

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in response to such proceeding assessee filed a detailed reply. However, ld. AO was not satisfied

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents as required and assessment was completed determining Nil income in the hands of the assessee. Further, the ld. AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in response to such proceeding assessee filed a detailed reply. However, ld. AO was not satisfied

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act on 16.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs 17,95,038/-. 2 A.Yr.2003-04&2005-06 3.2. In the penalty

SHRI SANAT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act on 16.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs 17,95,038/-. 2 A.Yr.2003-04&2005-06 3.2. In the penalty

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]

Penalty - Rs. 8,000/- iii) Contribution to Employee’s PF deposited - Rs. 66,26,052/- beyond the due date iv) Unaccounted profit from the sale of tea - Rs.3,61,55,620/- manufactured from purchased tea leaves. 2 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. AY 2016-17 4. Accordingly, assessment was framed vide order dated 17.03.2022 u/s. 147 read with 144B

TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

147 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,88,770/-. 3.1 In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee responded that an existing partner Shri Babul Pal Chaudhary was a partner

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD BE QUA ADMISSION OF INCOME U/S 132(4) AND NOT QUA THE ASSESSEE WHOSE PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132(1). 7. Relevant extracts from section 153C : Assessment of income of any other person. 153C. 153C. (1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section