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)

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C, Corollary being that after seizing of operation- alperiod of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

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

reassessment, there is no need to\nadjudicate other grounds.”\n(d) Recently The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of 'Shyam Sunder\nKhandelwal v. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)', had held that:\n\"Section 153A, read with sections 148 and 153C, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961\nSearch and seizure Assessment in case of (Section 153C

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

132 of the Act on 30-11-2012, proceedings u/s 153A was initiated by the AO on 21-10-2013. In the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) calling for various documents & information inter alia including the details of transactions conducted in commodity derivatives etc. and thereafter completed the assessment u/s 153A/143

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

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 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, 74belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 147, if the AO does not assess or reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of the notice u/s 148, is it open to the AO to assess or reassess independently any other income which does not form the subject-matter of the notice. 3. The brief facts

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132- A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

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 :-

132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on 02.07.2013. In the statement, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, 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 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 133(6) of the Act, the NSE issued a letter on 16/01/2017 and stated as follows: 16/01/2017 and stated as follows:- “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

132(1) on\n'Kasera' & 'Majee Group' on 30.11.2018 & 5.11.2020\nrespectively (searches were prior to 1.4.2021) and as such the\namended law u/s 147 and sec. 148 with effect from 1.4.2021\ncould not have been applied for issue of notice u/s 148 in such\nrespect and Ld. CIT(A) accordingly erred in not appreciating\nthe same

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

132(1) on\n'Kasera' & 'Majee Group' on 30.11.2018 & 5.11.2020\nrespectively (searches were prior to 1.4.2021) and as such the\namended law u/s 147 and sec. 148 with effect from 1.4.2021\ncould not have been applied for issue of notice u/s 148 in such\nrespect and Ld. CIT(A) accordingly erred in not appreciating\nthe same

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

132 of the I.T. Act 1961 was carried out in the case of Cygnus group of companies on 23.12.2014. During the course of post search and Seizure investigation. It is noted that M/s Sat yam Investment Advisory Pvt Ltd, a group company of M/s. Cygnus Group has taken accommodation entries from various paper/jamakharchi companies (copy enclosed). 4 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 147 of the Act namely, that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of that assessment year. 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid action of Ld. CIT(A), we note that though the Ld. CIT(A) has found fault with the reassessment order dated 28.03.2016 on three counts/legal issues, still

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

5 of the Act. The word ‘assessment’ cannot have a different meaning for different purposes under the same Act, unless restricted by specific provisions. The process of assessment for the purposes of the Act is wide enough to include every kind of enquiry/examination for discovery, quantification and assessment of any income wholly or partly for the purposes

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]

132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Firm on 15.1.2009.Assessments for AY 2007-08 to 2009-10 were completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/153A vide order dated 31.12.2010.For the assessment year 2010-11 assessment was 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Emta Coal Ltd. completed in the name of the FirmM/s. Eastern Mineral

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

132(1) on\n'Kasera' & 'Majee Group' on 30.11.2018 & 5.11.2020\nrespectively (searches were prior to 1.4.2021) and as such the\namended law u/s 147 and sec. 148 with effect from 1.4.2021\ncould not have been applied for issue of notice u/s 148 in such\nrespect and Ld. CIT(A) accordingly erred in not appreciating\nthe same

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-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. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

5. a result, the assessment order dated 30.09.2019 is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of clause (a) of Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act. In order to revise the said assessment, proceedings u/s. 263 is being initiated herewith. You are hereby afforded an opportunity