AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, 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 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries pany was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

u/s. 147 of the Act & not based on borrowed / dictated satisfaction of Investigation Wing/Superior Officer. Further, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the information recorded in reason for re-opening has not been linked in any way to assessee, so that AO could have thought that assessee could have indulged in any kind of activity/transaction which could

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]

u/s. 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment, which proposed action of AO was objected to by the assessee on 21.02.2017, which was brushed aside and the reassessment order was passed on 27.12.2017. Since the legal challenge is in respect of the very action of the AO to invoke the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, as stated above

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

ii) his having reason to believe that such under- assessment has resulted from nondisclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to start proceedings after the expiry of four years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ganga Saran &Sons Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 131 ITR 1 (SC) further

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

35,95,472/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 18.09.2009. 4. Subsequently, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed excessive bad debt to the tune of ₹90 lakh which was allowed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO found his belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment under section 147

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

35 to 37 - …….. Pages 39 to 46 ……. Q. No. 19. Please go through the bunch of loose sheets marked HRV -10 and explain? Ans. This bound pages 1 to 53 relates to accounted and unaccounted transaction of M/s PPL. We find that the assessee had demonstrated the manner of deriving the undisclosed income vis- a- vis the seized documents

M/S. DEVANSH EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.03.2013. According to Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the AO without application of mind after receipt of letter from DIT(Inv.), Kolkata has simply reopened the assessment. According to Ld. Counsel, before the AO decides to reopen the assessment, he has to satisfy the condition precedent to assume jurisdiction and for that

M/S GASSIN PIERRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

147 of the Act without any incriminating material or independent application of mind which was simply based on borrowed satisfaction and therefore is illegal and liable to be quashed. 2 I.T.A. No.112/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2014 declaring total income

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

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

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company had claimed the sum as business expenditure. Accordingly to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the sold expenditure is not allowable. 8 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the above, it appears that

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 which are as under: “The appellant is a trust running an educational institution. Return of income u/s 139(1) was not filed for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment u/s 147 was initiated on 25.03.2021 or A.Y.2016 for cash deposits of Rs.3,20,49,820/- made in various bank accounts of the appellant. The appellant had obtained registration u/s 12AB on30.08.2021

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.

II. It was seen from the Notes to Financial Statement [Point 1(111)] appear with the P&L Account and Balance Sheet for the year ended 31st March 2015 (F. Y-2014-15) i,e A. Y 2015-16 "that a devastating fire broke out at company 's flexible packaging unit at Dakuni, West Bengal in October 2014, which resulted

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

1(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not holding that the order u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 dated 29.12.2009 passed by the AO is unjustified, erroneous and needs to be summarily cancelled.” 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed its return of income

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]

147 is bad in law, since no fresh reopening of assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment assessment proceeding can be initiated on the same reasons on which the assessment was reopened earlier in the first round. was reopened earlier

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of ostensible transactions in hundi

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

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. In response, the office of the ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata had provided the same under the covered letter dated 14.07.2021. The Ld. AR submitted that on perusal of the sanctioned/approved proforma a copy of which is filed at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book filed by the AO in terms

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

35,376/-. No assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, only intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by the Department. A notice u/s 148 of the Act had been issued on 14.06.2013. Return of income filed pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 24.07.2013. A copy of the letter supplying reasons to believe