NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 and appellate proceeding u/s 250 was due to reasons beyond my control. 8. I affirm that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 5. We have heard the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the order

JIYA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

251/-U/s 143(1)\nNo\n10\nWhether the provision of section 150(1) are applicable.\nIf the answer is in the affirmative, the relevant facts\nmay be stated against item no.11 may also be brought\nout that the provision of section 150(2) would not\nstand in the way of initiating Proceedings u/s.147.\nNo\n11\nReasons for the belief that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUJRAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1789/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Gujrat Nre Coke Ltd. [Pan: Aabcg 6225 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 / 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Both the parties take us to the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge holding the impugned reopening / reassessment to be invalid as with the following detailed discussion: 2 M/s Gujrat NRE Coke Ltd. A.Yr. 2006-07 “3.2. This ground

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment by passing an order u/s. 147/143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 93,57,008/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit.” 2.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that 5 notices issued at the e-mail addresses i.e. (i) A.PROVASH@GMAIL.COM and (ii) saassociates.adv@gmail.com, which were available

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 03.07.2024, deleted the additions made u/s 68 I.T.A. No.: 2390/KOL/2024 C.O. No.: 5/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited. of the Act and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

reassessment order u/s. 147/143 dated 19.12.2013 without reasonable opportunity of hearing although the assessment will be barred by limitation on 31.03.2015, as the total interest awarded ,of Rs. 10,58,25,030/- to be divided equally in 10 assessment year i.e. Rs. 105,82,503/- for the assessment year 2005-06. That the basis for reopening the assessment u/s

M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

reassessment order u/s. 147/143 dated 19.12.2013 without reasonable opportunity of hearing although the assessment will be barred by limitation on 31.03.2015, as the total interest awarded ,of Rs. 10,58,25,030/- to be divided equally in 10 assessment year i.e. Rs. 105,82,503/- for the assessment year 2005-06. That the basis for reopening the assessment u/s

A.C.I.T, CIR-I, ASANSOL vs. SUBHAMOY MONDAL,, BURDWAN

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1687 & 1688/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06

251 (2) for enhancement of income was issued. This is pending. As I have annulled the reassessment, no enhancement is possible. Accordingly I drop the enhancement proceedings.” 5. Similar order was passed in both the assessment years by CIT(A) against which the present appeals have been preferred by the revenue. 3 A.Yrs.2004-05 & 2005-06 6. Aggrieved

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

147(b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), where a Bench of two learned judges of this court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the “oversight, inadvertence or mistake” of the Income-tax Officer must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income

INLAND VIKASH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 900/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-Iv, -Vs.- M/S. Inland Vikash Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6960 N) (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 565/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Inland Vikash Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Central Circle-Iv, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6960 N) (Respondent) (Appellant)

reassessment proceedings the AO determined the total income of the assessee as follows :- “Assessed Business loss as per order u/s 143(3) (-) Rs.27,174/- Add Sundry Creditors Rs.1,62,21,664/- Undercharge of income Rs.1,04,40,741/- u/s 40(i)(a) Rs.2,38,63,150/- Rs.5,05,25,555/- Rs.5,04,98,381/- Less Set off with B/f Depreciation

ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INLAND VIKASH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 900/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-Iv, -Vs.- M/S. Inland Vikash Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6960 N) (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 565/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Inland Vikash Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Central Circle-Iv, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6960 N) (Respondent) (Appellant)

reassessment proceedings the AO determined the total income of the assessee as follows :- “Assessed Business loss as per order u/s 143(3) (-) Rs.27,174/- Add Sundry Creditors Rs.1,62,21,664/- Undercharge of income Rs.1,04,40,741/- u/s 40(i)(a) Rs.2,38,63,150/- Rs.5,05,25,555/- Rs.5,04,98,381/- Less Set off with B/f Depreciation

M/S FANTASTIC FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 251 of the Act applicable w.e.f. 01/10/2024, I hereby set aside the impugned assessment order dated 12.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after affording reasonable opportunities to the appellant and diligently adhering to the principle of natural justice. The appellant is directed to comply with notices issued

ARPAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Arpan Securities Pvt. Limited,................Appellant 14C, M.D. Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700007 [Pan: Aajca9130H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

u/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Copy of order, Demand Notice and Challan are being issued to the assessee-company. [RANI KUMARI] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Kolkata” 3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Arpan Securities Pvt. Limited 5. The ld. Commissioner took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that in the reasons