D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) , KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

establish that the monies in the foreign bank account did not belong to him but that conclusion could be arrived at by the Ld. AO only after making necessary enquiries. At the stage of the issuance of the notice u/s148, the only question was whether sufficient material was available before the AO, on the basis of which a reasonable person

D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) , KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

establish that the monies in the foreign bank account did not belong to him but that conclusion could be arrived at by the Ld. AO only after making necessary enquiries. At the stage of the issuance of the notice u/s148, the only question was whether sufficient material was available before the AO, on the basis of which a reasonable person

D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) , KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

establish that the monies in the foreign bank account did not belong to him but that conclusion could be arrived at by the Ld. AO only after making necessary enquiries. At the stage of the issuance of the notice u/s148, the only question was whether sufficient material was available before the AO, on the basis of which a reasonable person

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

reassessment proceeding passed on the invalid\napproval.\nITA No. 2303/Kol/2024\n14. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the invalid proceeding u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148\nof the Act. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2014\ndeclaring total income of Rs.11,55,77,160/-. The other facts qua this year are also

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 148 can be quashed if the 'belief' is not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The b specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the asis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer when he recorded the reasons

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 148 can be quashed if the 'belief' is not bona fide, or one based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. The b specific information. The basis of the belief should be discernible from the asis of the belief should be discernible from the material on record, which was available with the Assessing Officer when he recorded the reasons

ACS TRADERS (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

established in the year 2007-08 for trading of Hosiery goods & Katha (Catechu) and it originally filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 on 20.09.2010 declaring Rs. 29,420/- and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the assessee’s case was reopened by the AO u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

u/s 143(1) was issued. Thus fulfillment of the conditions of section 147, including the one that there should be "reasons to believe" is essential for the validity of the notice under section 148." 8 I.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ganapati Developers. 3. On the facts as enumerated herein above we submit that the notice under section

ACS TRADERS (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

established in the year 2007-08 for trading of Hosiery goods & Katha (Catechu) and it originally filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 on 29.09.2012. Thereafter the assessee’s return of income was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act and we note that the AO in the first round while issuing notice u/s

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, ld. AO noticed that during the year there is a cash deposit of Rs. 1,73,77,481/-. Though, during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities it was submitted that the source of alleged cash deposit in cash in hand available with the assessee, however

BHAGWANT MERCHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. (iv) Further, the Assessing Officer

M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. (iv) Further, the Assessing Officer

M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not indicate escapement of income. (iv) Further, the Assessing Officer

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Permanent Account\nNumber of each Director,\n3.\nDetails of share capital raised during the financial year 2010-11, indicating the\nname(s), complete postal address and PAN(s) of the shareholders alongwith\ncopies of respective share application forms,\n4.\nDocuments justifying the claim made in computation of income that Bonus.\namounting to Rs.42,61,336/- pertaining to earlier year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ADHUNIK CEMENT LTD., (NOW DALMIA BHARAT CEMENT), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

147 of the Act. There was no reference to any document or statement, except the annexure. The annexure could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie 14 I.T.A. No. 1375/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Adhunik Cement Ltd showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

permanent establishment located in India. The first petitioner did reply thereto by its writing dated March 24, 2015. The assessing officer did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners thereafter. It did not decide the jurisdictional fact as whether there are transactions requiring the attention of the TPO. The TPO had issued a notice dated April