M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007- 08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and quashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed.” 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

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)

250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts of the case by not providing the appellant with reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts of the case

SHREE PRAKASH CHHAWACHHARIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/05/2019, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee is a HUF and is in the business of commodity transaction and other sources. He filed its return of income originally u/s 139 of the Act. Notice for reopening of this assessment was issued u/s

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income showing total loss of Rs.4047/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case

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 :-

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” iry 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 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court

H,L.G.MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, 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 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4.1. On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the assessee has failed

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.

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 31-03-2022 by the Ld. A.O. without meeting the objections raised by the assessee on reopening of the assessment was contrary to the binding principle of law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), and hence void

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

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 & C.O. 4/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income showing total loss of Rs.2205/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

250 (Bom) vi) CIT vs. KSP Shanmugavel Nadai & Ors. (153 ITR 596 ) (Madras- High Court) vii) Orbit Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 513/Kol/2020 for AY 2012-13 dated 22.04.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has condoned the delay of 1535 days for the reason that the assessee was suffering from lungs infection and diabetic and other oldage

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 (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

SRI NEERAJ UMA SHANKAR MURARKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 27/05/2019, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The main issue argued before me is whether the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, is valid in law. 3. After hearing rival contentions, I find that the reasons of reopening are as follows:- “The assessee filed his return

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 148 has been issued in 23.03.2018 i.e. after the lapse of\n4 years from the end of relevant assessment year 2011-12.\nTherefore, the conditions specified in sec. 147 is not complied. The\nre-opening proceeding in the instant case was not in consonance\nof law.\nCBDT circular

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]

Section 147 of the Act comes 09 and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act comes into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment shows that ssment shows that there is no allegation made, that there is failure on the part

M/S SHREYANS JAIN, HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, 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 : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/05/2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, as bad in law. 3. Heard rival contentions. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is as follows:- 2 Assessment Years

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act and four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and the proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies. Under such circumstances, when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material evidence necessary for the assessment for that Assessment Year