INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-42(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KUMAR KESARWANI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment for want of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and also on merits that there is no violation of section 194C

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of 'change of opinion' as an in-built test to check abuse of power

I.T.O WD - 2(2),BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. NATRAJ UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BURDWAN

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the reassessment proceedings U/s 147/148 of the Act,theassessee had explained that the issue was addressed by way of a reconciliation which was not considered by the Ld. AO. Further, the Ld. AO conceived that the expenses incurred on account of labour charges had infringed the provisions of section

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

reassessment proceedings are held to be valid and the Ground no. 2 of the appeal is therefore dismissed”. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition of Rs.8,80,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 8 to 8.2 of his impugned order

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INTRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 on 10.09.2010 on the same reasons as stated in the present case that Assessee Company was merely a contractor and, therefore, would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. However, this Tribunal in that case for AY 2006-07 held that the assessee company was developing

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 on 10.09.2010 on the same reasons as stated in the present case that Assessee Company was merely a contractor and, therefore, would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. However, this Tribunal in that case for AY 2006-07 held that the assessee company was developing

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SATYANARAYAN PANDEY, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

147/-( Rs.2,30,801 + Rs.7,346) deducted by Steel Authority of India Ltd. on the payment of bilty, freight charges of Rs.1,06,13,945/-( Rs.1,02,86,600 + Rs.3,27,345) to assessee on 31.03.2007. But from the list of sundry debtors it was revealed that an amount of Rs.84,13,343/- instead of Rs.1

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

194C 194J Rs.5,45,692/- (ii) u/s 37(1) on account of inadmissible donation Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 5,66,522/- Total Income from Business Rs.3,63,56,869/- Less: Brought forward business loss set off Rs.43,91,870/- Less: Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation Set off Rs.2,47,02,614/- Less: Brought forward depreciation set off To the tune

A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-51, KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA ENGINEERING, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

194C of the Act but assessee has defaulted in deducting the TDS ITA No.2442 & CO 141/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT Cir-51 Kol. vs. M/s Maa Engineering Page 3 on the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, AO has disallowed the aforesaid expense u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred

RISING RETAILS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act during the reassessment proceedings.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Ld. AO found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.24,01,69,671/- towards contract expense which include an amount of Rs.24,00,84,000/- paid to M/s. Sarda Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. issued letter