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)

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there

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)

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 (Bom.) (HC), has held that there is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons to believe as detailed under :- "From the reliable sources, it has come to notice that M/s Sunder Lal Mohan Lal Sharda & others had received Rs. 20852219/- as mining lease expenditure and Rs.73691121 as Transfer of Mining lease (Capital Expenditure) from M/s Sharda Mines Pvt. Ltd. (Total Rs.94543340) during

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)

201/ [2022] 447 ITR 517 has taken a contrary view. 7.1 In the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Delhi High Court, while considering the very issue and on interpretation of section 153A of the Act, 1961, has summarised the legal position as under: Summary of the legal position 38. On a conspectus of section 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

section 147 of the Act and\ncannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the\ndecision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in\n[2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the\nHon'ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment u/s. 147 on the issue of non-deduction of tax at source on cretins expenses claimed as deduction which is beyond the lapse of four years and that there is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the relevant material facts in the course of assessment proceedings. 4. Brief facts of the case are that

A.C.I.T., CIR-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

201/- and the same was added to the book profits u/s 115JA of the Act by applying Clause (f) of Explanation to section 115JA of the Act. The Learned AR argued that the Learned CIT(A) erred in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for the assessment year under appeal by ignoring the proviso to section

ADIT(IT)-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

reassessment proceedings have been initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without fulfilling the conditions laid down for the same in the proviso to the section 147 of the IT Act since neither the assessee failed to make a return u/s 139(1) nor any notice u/s 142(1) or u/s

M/S. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ASST. DIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

reassessment proceedings have been initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without fulfilling the conditions laid down for the same in the proviso to the section 147 of the IT Act since neither the assessee failed to make a return u/s 139(1) nor any notice u/s 142(1) or u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

147 and notice u/s 148 was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed the return u/s 148. The Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax Unit-1(1), Kolkata observed that the assessee has made share transactions of Rs.57,86,077/- in penny stock scrip of M/s Wagend Infra Ventures

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

147 and notice u/s 148 was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed the return u/s 148. The Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax Unit-1(1), Kolkata observed that the assessee has made share transactions of Rs.57,86,077/- in penny stock scrip of M/s Wagend Infra Ventures

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

reassessment and second time during the present assessment. The information were to be verified by the AO. It is trite law that an assessment has to be based on materials on records. Even if the AO disbelieves the evidences adduced by the assessee, in the absence of any contrary material on record no addition can be made. AO assessed

M/S. SAMAKSH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S. Samaksh Holdings Pvt. Acit, Circle-1(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, 16, Strand Road, Diamond Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Heritage, 14Th Floor, West Bengal Vs. Room No- 1402, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck2106P Assessee By : Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025

201 (Karnatak) has upheld that the order passed by the Tribunal holding that non-communication of reasons recorded for reassessment to assessee did not amount to a mere procedural lapse and thus, upholding the order of Tribunal wherein the reassessment order was quashed on the ground that the reasons recorded by the ld. AO for reopening of assessment were never

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARBHERAM VISHRAM, JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

reassessment proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. In my considered opinion the Income-tax Act, 1961 nowhere stipulates the time limit for disposing the objections raised by the assessee to the reasons recorded u/s. 148, Even the requirement for disposal of objections is a procedural requirement mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported