DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

147 proceedings is the material seized relating to or belonging to the assessee,\nduring the search conducted of Manihar Group. It is also noticed that being aggrieved\nwith the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act by the AO the\nassessee filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court challenging the\nnotice issued under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

reassessment proceedings was bad in law as it did not satisfy the condition precedent in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 18. We also find merit in the alternate contention made by the Ld. AR that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2016 without first forming reasons to believe that income

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’).

254 ITR 242 (Punj. & Har.) it was opined that it is not necessary that assessment should have been finalised under section 143(3) before it can be 'reopened' under section 147, since an intimation under section 143(1) operates an order of assessment unless the Assessing Officer proceeds to give notice under section 143(2) and passes an order under

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.

u/s 143(3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 14 7(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such

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)

section 147 of the Act, therefore, the proceeding u/s.147 against the assessee should be dropped. It was further required by the assessee to provide the reason for re-opening the case which was duly provided by Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 the assessing officer. The assessee further filed written submission dated 25.07.2016 in which

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)

section 147 of the Act, therefore, the proceeding u/s.147 against the assessee should be dropped. It was further required by the assessee to provide the reason for re-opening the case which was duly provided by Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 the assessing officer. The assessee further filed written submission dated 25.07.2016 in which

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 to validly reopen the assessment. to validly reopen the assessment. He pointed out that there was not even a whisper in the recorded there was not even a whisper in the recorded reasons that there was there was failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts required

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

147 of the Act. On the other hand, the ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly had recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment and had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, but did not proceed further with the framing of assessment. Under the circumstances, the assessment framed by ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

147 of the Act. On the other hand, the ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly had recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment and had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, but did not proceed further with the framing of assessment. Under the circumstances, the assessment framed by ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

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

254 / 147 dated 14.11.2007 did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In respect of other additions, assessee preferred first appeal before the Learned CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee had derived dividend income of Rs. 43,94,663/- and claimed exemption u/s

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263, or 264 1[or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act] ; (iii) where

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has claimed personal expenses against the income of other sources which are not allowable u/s57 of the Act. ITA No.215-18/Kol/2016 A.Ys. 01-02 to 04-05 Debottor Trust Estate of Rammohan Mullick vs. ITO Wd-43(4) Kol. Page 3 However the fact is that no expenditure of whatsoever

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

254/[2019] 361 ITR 22, wherein the Hon'ble Court ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 has held that where the assessee has filed all evidences concerning to the money received and have shown that payments were through account payee cheques then it could be said that the assessee

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

254/[2019] 361 ITR 22, wherein the Hon'ble Court ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 has held that where the assessee has filed all evidences concerning to the money received and have shown that payments were through account payee cheques then it could be said that the assessee

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

254/[2019] 361 ITR 22, wherein the Hon'ble Court ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 has held that where the assessee has filed all evidences concerning to the money received and have shown that payments were through account payee cheques then it could be said that the assessee

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

254/[2019] 361 ITR 22, wherein the Hon'ble Court ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 has held that where the assessee has filed all evidences concerning to the money received and have shown that payments were through account payee cheques then it could be said that the assessee

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which