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

Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 and such escapement has occurred due to assessee’s failure to disclose all material fact truly and correctly in its return of income. In order to assess/re-assess the said income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment as aforesaid and to assess/re-assess any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment

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

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]

36(1)(vii), (viia) and the foreign exchange rate difference. The order of the Commissioner under section 263(2) had not been passed with reference to any issue which had been decided either in the order of the first reassessment or in the order of second reassessment but sought to revise issues decided in the first order of assessment passed

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.

36,91,121/- and Rs. 2,08,52,219/-. You had claimed depreciation on purchase of the assets. Considering the nexus between your company and JSPL, no depreciation on such assets should be allowed. However, this was not done, resulting in substantial loss of revenue. You have claimed Rs. 50 lakhs under 35AC in the order u/s 143(3) dated

G. S. ATWAL & CO. (ENGG.) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act which is completely arbitrary unjustified and illegal. 5. For that the interest u/s. 234D amounting to Rs.12,43,779/- charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 6. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee

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]

vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under section 143 (2). The no pursuance of the notice under section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name

DIVYA SECFIN PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

u/s. 148 issued on 23/24-03-2011, wherein Hon’ble High Court upheld tribunal’s findings as under:- 4 I.T.A No 538/Kol/2018 A.Y 2005-06 “12. Perusing the reasons for re­opening of the assessment in the present case, the ITAT came to the conclusion that it was apparent that the AO proceeded to send a notice under Section 147/148

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]

36,50,560/-. Thereafter, on 27.07.2016, the Ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause notice dated 27.07.2016 intimating his desire to exercise his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and thereafter by order dated 27.09.2016 Ld. Pr. CIT was pleased to set aside the order of the AO dated 25.03.2015 and directed de novo assessment as well as directing

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

vii) Arvind Sahdeo Gupta –vs.- ITO – 153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay) – Order dated 08.08.2023; (viii) Ferrous Infra Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- DCIT- 63 taxmann.com 201 (Delhi)- Order dated 21.05.2015. Sr. 1 to 8 (index) 5 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. The copies of these decisions have been filed before us as discernable from

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 9. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 14.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.553,79,34,548/- as against the total income of Rs.205,15,88,000/- declared by the assessee

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 9. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 14.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.553,79,34,548/- as against the total income of Rs.205,15,88,000/- declared by the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

vii) of section 36(1) of the Act, which reads as under: "Provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

vii) of section 36(1) of the Act, which reads as under: "Provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

36(1)(vii), (viia) and the foreign exchange rate difference. The order of the Commissioner under section 263(2) had not been passed with reference to any issue which had been decided either in the order of the first reassessment or in the order of second Page 10 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 380/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Zulu Merchandise

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-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. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

147 would be construed in a way that if addition on a point for which assessment is being reopened is not made, then, no other addition would be made. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the ld. Commissioner in this impugned order did not doubt the veracity of acceptance of loan amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- from

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(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. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

147 would be construed in a way that if addition on a point for which assessment is being reopened is not made, then, no other addition would be made. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the ld. Commissioner in this impugned order did not doubt the veracity of acceptance of loan amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- from