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 1941 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company has claimed the sum as business expenditure. According to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the said expenditure is not allowable. On the basis of above, it appears that the sum of Rs. 11,33,85,160/- has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2007-08. In view

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.

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act should have been passed within 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served i.e. within 31-03-2022. The assessment order was served on the assessee at its registered email id only on 16-04-2022, thus the assessment order is ante-dated

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)

54,96,800/- on a/c of Entry tax (AY 2002-03 to 2004-05). It has not been disallowed u/s 43B in the assessment. g. Prior period expenses of Rs. 94,683/-, debited to the profit/loss a/c has not been disallowed. h. Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease of M/s Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.186 ITR 278 has held that

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)

54,96,800/- on a/c of Entry tax (AY 2002-03 to 2004-05). It has not been disallowed u/s 43B in the assessment. g. Prior period expenses of Rs. 94,683/-, debited to the profit/loss a/c has not been disallowed. h. Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease of M/s Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.186 ITR 278 has held that

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

54,69,61,226/-. The assessee had carried the matter in appeal and was granted part relief. 4. The AO re-opened assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the second time by recording following reasons: “The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 12.05.2010 at a total income of Rs.53,02,64,480/-. Subsequently information

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

54,69,61,226/-. The assessee had carried the matter in appeal and was granted part relief. 4. The AO re-opened assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the second time by recording following reasons: “The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 12.05.2010 at a total income of Rs.53,02,64,480/-. Subsequently information

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment by mentioning as follows:- Mistake in computation of total income. To be produced details of proof of evidences claiming exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act in respect of capital gain during the FY 2004-05 relevant with AY 2005- 06. 3.2. The assessee vide letter dated 17.4.2012 requested the ld AO to inform the reason for initiating proceedings

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)

section 44AB of the Act for the year under consideration. Therefore, tax audit provisions are not applicable to the assessee. Therefore, so far this issue/ item is concerned there is no tangible material before the AO to frame ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment, hence reassessment proceedings are not valid. (ii).Expenditure of Rs.1

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

54,50,000/-. The said scrip is a Penny Stock listed on BSE having Scrip Code 517534. Another information on the same lines was received from the office of ADIT(lnv). Unit- II, Nasik regarding trading of shares of M/s Bedmutha Industries regarding Long Term Capital Gain earned in a dubious manner, 8. The details of information have’ been discussed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

section 147 of the Act and\ncannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the\ndecision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in\n[2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the\nHon'ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DAMANI & CO., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

54 taxmann.com 220 (Cochin – Trib.) which are placed on record. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld AR submitted orders of various co- ordinate Benches of ITAT and judgment of Courts which are placed on record. Ld. AR has challenged the initiation of proceedings and issuance

DAMANI & CO,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 45(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

54 taxmann.com 220 (Cochin – Trib.) which are placed on record. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld AR submitted orders of various co- ordinate Benches of ITAT and judgment of Courts which are placed on record. Ld. AR has challenged the initiation of proceedings and issuance

JAI PRAKASH GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessing income under Section 147 of the Act would not arise." 33. In Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Limited (supra), it was held that "...the impugned notices must also be set aside as the AO had no reason to believe that the income of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment. Concededly, the AO had no tangible material

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 of the Act and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC) wherein it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex court that no re-opening can be made u/s 147

M/S. OSIAN STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/O S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) On Legal Issue As Well As On Merit As Raised In The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Which Are Reproduced Below: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts & Disposing The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Taken Into Consideration All Legal Steps Before Initiating Action U/S 147 When The Reopening Of Assessment Was Not In Accordance With Law.

54 lakhs (20+34) has escaped assessment on the basis of above two information. The Ld AO issued notices which were complied with by the assessee. But the ld. Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, added the amount of Rs.54,00,000/- as unexplained