ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding has been seized during the course of search operation in the case of Shri P. Dayanand Pai and, therefore, the provisions of section 292C does not apply on ITA No. 736/Kol/2022 & C.O. No. 3/Kol/2023 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2005-06 the assessee since the presumption as to books of accounts, assets etc. is in respect

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding has been seized during the course of search operation in the case of Shri P. Dayanand Pai and, therefore, the provisions of section 292C does not apply on ITA No. 736/Kol/2022 & C.O. No. 3/Kol/2023 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2005-06 the assessee since the presumption as to books of accounts, assets etc. is in respect

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 269 of the 1.T. Act,\n1961 may kindly be treated as null & void and addition made of Rs.\n17,10,95,930/- may kindly be directed to delete.\nSir, before embarking upon the Statement of Facts on the Grounds\nof Appeal already taken, we like to take an Additional Ground of\nAppeal as under which may kindly

M/S ROYAL TOUCH FABLON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceeding without fulfilling the condition as enumerated u/s. 147 of the Act and without independent application of mind. The assessee has also raised another legal issue challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO while the assessment is bad in law in view because of notice u/s. 143(2) not being issued within

REGIS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Act. The Id. AR\nvehemently contended that there was no satisfaction recorded in the\nreasons by the AO and he merely treated the information received\nfrom ITO(inv), Unit-1, Kolkata, as gospel truth. The Id. AR further\nsubmitted that the assessee was not having any bank account with\nICICI bank and had never deposited

M/S WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 18.11.2011. 2. We find that the assessee has raised two additional grounds before us vide Additional Ground no.7 and 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that Additional Ground no.7

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

147 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. ACIT(OSD), Ward-i(i), Kolkata rectifying the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 by levying interest under section 234 of the Act by observing as under; “In the instance case order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I. T. Act for the AY 2010- 11 was passed on 27.12.2017, with assessed income

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, ld. AO noticed that during the year there is a cash deposit of Rs. 1,73,77,481/-. Though, during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities it was submitted that the source of alleged cash deposit in cash in hand available with the assessee, however

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

147 of the Act. The issue that was considered by the AO in the re-assessment proceedings was as to the manner in which profit on sale of DEPB licence had to be computed. The AO noticed that the total value of export incentive in the form of DEPB licence received by the assessee during the previous year

ITO WARD 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

reassessment cannot be sustained on the basis of only change of opinion. He has challenged the reasons for reopening by citing a decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO [2014] 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC). 7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties there is no dispute that