ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28/09/2008 declaring total income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28/09/2008 declaring total income

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]

4 crores in the construction of a hotel at Mandarmoni. We find that in this regard that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., Vs. R.B.Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 0332 the 14 Shri Udit Kumar Dugar, AY 2012-13 reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution

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 :-

reassessment, after the expiry of period of four years, is not fulfilled in the present case.” 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court i 4.5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in 250 CTR 119 n the case of Sound Casting (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported

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.

4. 147 Order not as That on the facts of the case and per law in law there is no allegation of non-disclosure of facts by the assessee in the reasons recorded, no new material or facts was in the possession of the learned AO in reopening a completed assessment and thus the reopening having being done

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

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

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

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

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

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, 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 Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The revenue originally has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld, CIT(A) was justified in the quashing the addition of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 03.11.2022 arising out of the separate assessment orders u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by ACIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata dated 31.12.2018. Since grounds of appeal raised in these