SHREE PRAKASH CHHAWACHHARIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147, 6 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Prakash Chhawchharia (HUF) Shree Prakash Chhawchharia (HUF) then it is not mere open to the AO to independently assess any other income, then it is not mere open to the AO to independently assess any other income, then it is not mere open to the AO to independently assess any other income

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 Act. Here, we note that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed on 31-03-2015 u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was brought to our notice that the assessee’s premise was searched on 30-11-2012 and consequent thereto, proceedings u/s 153A was initiated for the relevant

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that the said proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objections and without independent application of mind by the AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 1(a),1(b)&1(c) taken hereinabove

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)

reassessment proceedings are not valid and the same should be quashed. 10.On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 11. We have heard both the parties

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)

reassessment proceedings are not valid and the same should be quashed. 10.On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 11. We have heard both the parties

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 151 of the IT Act ld. CIT’s approval is required before issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act.” 6. In view of above, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee objected on the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on following grounds : (i) At the time

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

51,744/- has escaped assessment. We have also examined the balance sheet of the assesse especially Schedule no. 4 in respect of “Cash and Bank Balances” copy of which is available in the paper book at page no. 10 and observe that the assessee has duly disclosed the accounts with Vijaya Bank in the said schedule meaning thereby cash

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

51,744/- has escaped assessment. We have also examined the balance sheet of the assesse especially Schedule no. 4 in respect of “Cash and Bank Balances” copy of which is available in the paper book at page no. 10 and observe that the assessee has duly disclosed the accounts with Vijaya Bank in the said schedule meaning thereby cash

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

51,744/- has escaped assessment. We have also examined the balance sheet of the assesse especially Schedule no. 4 in respect of “Cash and Bank Balances” copy of which is available in the paper book at page no. 10 and observe that the assessee has duly disclosed the accounts with Vijaya Bank in the said schedule meaning thereby cash

M/S SHREYANS JAIN, HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, 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 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: "For the A.Y. 2003 "For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted 04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny

M/S. SATYAM INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Satyam Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd……………....……………....…………………….....Appellant 51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [Pan : Aalcs 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent

51, Panchanna Gram Kolkata – 700 039 [PAN : AALCS 2500 H] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Kolkata......……….....................Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 12th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : April

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

51,00,000/- mentioned against the PAN of the assessee is also incorrect and the Assessing Officer has concluded that out of Rs.51,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- has escaped assessment and remained undisclosed. There is no entry of Rs.20,00,000/- as 4 evident from the bank statement and even the finding of the Assessing Officer before reopening that

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]

147 read with 144 of the Act, the Ld. AR stated that before forming reason to believe on the basis of such information there has to be application of mind in an objective manner by the AO and only thereafter, there should be formation of belief. In the last of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has been stated by the AR of the appellant that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-5(3), New Delhi. The contention of the appellant is that the issue of notice u/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-5(3), New Delhi is beyond jurisdiction

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ADHUNIK CEMENT LTD., (NOW DALMIA BHARAT CEMENT), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

u/s 143(1) was issued. Thus fulfillment of the conditions of section 147, including the one that there should be "reasons to believe" is essential for the validity of the notice under section 148." 8 I.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ganapati Developers. 3. On the facts as enumerated herein above we submit that the notice under section

M/S. CYGNUS INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi)

51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: “For the A.Y. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 which was objected by the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

51,52,890/-. In the said assessment, he also disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80HHC and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,04,72,490/-. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before