DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

29 (Del.);\niv. Dr. Prannoy Roy\nV. CIT: 254 ITR 755, 770 (Del.); v. CIT vs. Karam Chand Prem Chand Ltd: 40 ITR\n106;\nvi. C.A. Abraham vs. ITO: 41 ITR 425;\nvii. CIT vs. N.H.T. Company: AIR 1973 SC 2524;\nviii. Petron Engineering Construction Pvt.Ltd vs. CBDT: 175 ITR 523;\nix. Birla Cement Works vs. CBDT

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 143(3) of the Act, and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, comes into play. 7. This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances in the case of This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances in the case of This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances

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 143(3) of the Act, and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, comes into play. 7. This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances in the case of This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances in the case of This Bench of the of the Tribunal under identical circumstances

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

29 March, 2019. The petitioner received a copy of 'reasons to believe' furnished by respondent no. 3 on 11 September, 2019, which were objected by the petitioner. On such objection, an order was passed by the Assessing officer rejecting the objections as raised by the petitioners, so as to pro- ceed to reassess the income of the petitioner under Section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

u/s. 143(3), the proviso to Sec. 147 further mandates that no action shall be taken under Section 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company had claimed the sum as business expenditure. Accordingly to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the sold expenditure is not allowable. 8 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the above, it appears that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

section 2(14) of the Act and expression of the AO “requires much deeper scrutiny” indicated that he was mere embarking on mere presumptions without any belief much less belief based on reason and material and thus the reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

section 2(14) of the Act and expression of the AO “requires much deeper scrutiny” indicated that he was mere embarking on mere presumptions without any belief much less belief based on reason and material and thus the reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above

INDIAN WIRE AND STEEL PRODUCTS ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2Nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaafi 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year and hence

H,L.G.MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4.1. On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the assessee has failed

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.

u/s 143(3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 14 7(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

10, wherein the grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-opening proceedings u/s 147 were bad in law and, as such, ought to have quashed the same. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that as per proviso to section 147

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

10, wherein the grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-opening proceedings u/s 147 were bad in law and, as such, ought to have quashed the same. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that as per proviso to section 147

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 147 of the Act comes 09 and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act comes into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment shows that ssment shows that there is no allegation made, that there is failure on the part

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

reassess the income ofthe petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

10 notice was issued under section 148. Setting out the reasons, for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment was sought to be reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came

M/S. SATYAM INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd……………....……………....…………………….....Appellant 51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Aalcs 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent

29-3-2011 from the office of the Commissioner (1) conveying approval to the proposal submitted by the Assessing Officer. There is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the requirement of section 151(2) could have only been fulfilled by the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner that this is a fit case for the issuance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

u/s 143(3) of the Act and as four years have expired from the end of the relevant assessment year 2008-09. He relied on a number of case laws including i. D.C.I.T, Circle - 11(1) Vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. ITANo. 2291/Kol/2016 Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. ii. Amiya Sales & Industries Vs A.C.I.T 274 ITR 25, Hon’ble High Court