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

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

LAKSHMI DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA

reassessment proceedings, it was unclear if Ground No. 4 (regarding approval of notice u/s 148) was adequately addressed. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that the impugned amounts represented sundry debtors and that complete details were not presented.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "68", "133(6)", "151", "144A

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

reassessment proceedings. 10. Relevant bank statement of the assessee evidencing transactions with M/s Pushkar Trading and Holding Pvt Ltd and confirmation of accounts received by the party. 11. Objection filed by the assessee and disposal order by AO. 12. Reply filed by the assessee dated 22-10-2018. 13. Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated

PARASHNATH INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

147 Page 4 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 188/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Parashnath Investment Ltd. of the Act dated 18.12.2018 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Since the issue before us pertains to the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act we find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

147 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and is a nullity. Sl. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY No. . Page No. of LPB I. PCIT vs. Silver Line (2016) 383 ITR Hon’ble High Court 34-40 455 (Del) of Delhi 2. PCIT-08 Vs. Shri Jai ITA No. Hon’ble High Court 41-49 Shiv Shankar Traders 519/2015

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

147 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee- company was called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain the stock of Rs.97.26 crores written off by it during the year under consideration. In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee-company that the stock to that extent was written off on account of shrinkage

SATYAJIT DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.301/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyajit Das……………………...................................................……Appellant Moubesia, Dhulasimla, Uluberia, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Agvpd4627P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ 1. For That Both The Impugned Order Of Assessment & The Appellate Order Dated 28.12.2017 & 20.11.2019 Respectively Are Bad In Law & Based On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts. 2. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining The Assessment, As The Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Invoking

144A of the Act did not give a chance of hearing to the appellant and therefore, such ex-parte direction is liable to be quashed. 9. FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the appellant's submission dated 28.12.2017 in proper perspective and wrongly added back