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]

b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed to confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to, income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

reassessment proceedings the income escaped must exceed rupees one lakh as per the limitation set out under the provisions of Section 149(1)(b). When the reasons do not reflect that the income having escaped assessment was more than rupees one lakh or likely to be more than rupees one lakh, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 itself would

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

reassessment proceedings the income escaped must exceed rupees one lakh as per the limitation set out under the provisions of Section 149(1)(b). When the reasons do not reflect that the income having escaped assessment was more than rupees one lakh or likely to be more than rupees one lakh, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 itself would

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]

B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 569/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj Vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata (PAN: AEEPB 5525 K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2022 For the Appellant Shri Dilip Chatterjee, A.R For the Respondent Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, CITDR ORDER Per Shri

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

55 of the paper book. He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer by the Assessing Officer

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

55 of the paper book. He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non He took this bench through the reasons and submitted that there is total non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer by the Assessing Officer

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reasons and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was considered and after considering the response of the assessee

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reasons and the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was considered and after considering the response of the assessee

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

55,000/- u/s 69A of the Act to the income of the assessee instead of Rs. 2,52,42,000/- and calculated the taxes accordingly. Therefore, the amount received from M/s Sheetal Steel amounting to ₹2,01,87,000/- was not added back, whereas the said amount was clearly mentioned by the ld. AO in Para 2 of page no.2

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page 5 7.1 From

D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. (Shri) ArjunLalSaini, AM] I.TA No.1672 to 1674/Kol/2018 A.Y 2001-02, A.Y 2002-03 &A.Y 2005-06 I.TA No.1861 & 1862/Kol/2018 A.Y 2003-04 & A.Y 2004-05 D.C.I.T, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata Vs. Sri BiswanathGarodia PAN: ADGPG4384E Appellant/Department Respondent/Assessee C.O. No. 87 , 88 & 89/Kol/2018 [I.TA No.1672 to 1674/Kol/2018

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)

b) of section 149(1) of the IT Act, as such time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 is six years from the end of assessment year. However, as per 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

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)

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, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming proportionate disallowance made in the order under section 147 of the Act towards repairs of Rs. 15,51,000/- on the contention that building

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

u/s 2(47)(i) & (ii) of the Act. Since, the assessee company was a member of the cooperative society and possession was given for the exclusive enjoyment of the property and consideration was also received which transaction was covered in the provision of Section 2(47) (vi) of the Act. However, these offices were registered during the impugned assessment year

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) Geo Miller & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. 262 ITR 0605 (Cal-HC)\n\"The proviso to section 147 provides that no action shall be taken\nafter the expiry of four years unless the contingencies provided are\nsatisfied. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that none of\nthe conditions provided in the proviso to section 147

ALANKAR COMMODEAL (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

2 Status Company 3 PAN No. AAHCA1771G 4 Assessment Year 2009-10 5 The quantum of income has Rs.2,24,55,000/- escaped assessment 6 Whether provisions of sec147(a) 147(b) or 147(b) are applicable or both the sections are applicable? 7 Whether the assessment is proposed to be made for the first time, if the reply

M.A. FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

section 144B of the Act on 24.05.2023 determining total income of Rs.6,55,31,471/- inter-alia making following addition: 1. Addition on account of unexplained money of Rs.5,18,51,321/-. u/s. 69A of the Act. 2. Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head of salary and wages of Rs.51,15,500/-. 3. Addition on account of unexplained money