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, 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

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I. T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re- assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.’’ He further placed reliance upon the following judgments

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act can be reopened by the AO beyond the period of 4 years if it is found that income has escaped assessment by the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147. In this regard, the learned DR has contended that the letter filed by the assessee cannot replace the return and by filing such letter, the assessee cannot be said to have complied with the requirement of filling the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148. It is however observed that this aspect has already been considered

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147. In this regard, the learned DR has contended that the letter filed by the assessee cannot replace the return and by filing such letter, the assessee cannot be said to have complied with the requirement of filling the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148. It is however observed that this aspect has already been considered

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147. In this regard, the learned DR has contended that the letter filed by the assessee cannot replace the return and by filing such letter, the assessee cannot be said to have complied with the requirement of filling the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148. It is however observed that this aspect has already been considered

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return

PANDROL RAHEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

159 CTR (SC) 114 : (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court observed : "It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be issued, i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of return

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

section 147 of the Act cannot be resorted to, to verify or to make further enquiry, as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S. P. Chaliha and Ors., 79 ITR 603 (SC). The assessee filed Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee has disclosed each item/issue

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

147 of the Act after a period of 4 years has been quashed. Similarly in the case of CIT vs Multiplex Trading & Industrial (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that since the assessee has disclosed ' all the material facts at the time of making assessment, 7 I.T.A. No. 624/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Delighted Holdings

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASKA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

159 ITR 624 as well as in R.B Bansilal ITA No. 2682/Kol/13 M/s. Aska Investments Pvt.Ltd 1 Abirchand Firm v. CIT (SC) 70 ITR 74, thereby, making the deletion of perverse, unlawful and unjustified. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is company and dealing in the business of finance, Share and Real Estate. The original assessment

MRS. NEELAM AGRAWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

147 read with section 144B of the Act and returned income was accepted. Thereafter, Ld. PCIT assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act called for the assessment record and observed that Ld. AO has not properly carried out the assessment proceedings regarding the transaction of sale of shares of AML Ltd. & EML and thereafter considering the submission of assessee which

SAHARA HOUSINGFINE CORPORATION LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1), KOL. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

159/-. The assessee challenged the assessment framed by The Assessing Officer (in short Ld. 'AO') before the first appellate authority. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding the order of Ld. AO. 4. Now, Ld. A/R vehemently argued before us that the case of the assessee was apparently opened after the lapse of four years Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

159, Rabindra Sarani, 110, Shantipally, 3 rd Floor, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AANCS2337J Assessee by : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Raunak Jain, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are cross appeals preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

159, Rabindra Sarani, 110, Shantipally, 3 rd Floor, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AANCS2337J Assessee by : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Raunak Jain, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are cross appeals preferred