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

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

vii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to acknowledge para 6.2 of the said instruction, wherein the extended reassessment notice for the A.Y.2016-17 was to be dealt as under :- Fresh notice u/s. 148 can be issued with approval of the specified authority under clause (a) of sub-section

RAJENDRA RAMPAL,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. AO passed the ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 at the total income of Rs.3,07,80,060/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated

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

56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer therein and after considering the submission made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the re- opening of assessment originally completed under section 143(3) beyond a period of four years without there

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

56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer therein and after considering the submission made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the re- opening of assessment originally completed under section 143(3) beyond a period of four years without there

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

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.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

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.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

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.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), 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) No fresh reference was made to ld TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act in the reassessment proceedings for determination of ALP. (viii) The ld AO just adopted the adjustment to ALP suggested by the ld TPO in his order dated 29.1.2013 (which was done vide illegal reference) and made addition to that extent in the reassessment proceedings completed

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

vii) No fresh reference was made to ld TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act in the reassessment proceedings for determination of ALP. (viii) The ld AO just adopted the adjustment to ALP suggested by the ld TPO in his order dated 29.1.2013 (which was done vide illegal reference) and made addition to that extent in the reassessment proceedings completed

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), 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) No fresh reference was made to ld TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act in the reassessment proceedings for determination of ALP. (viii) The ld AO just adopted the adjustment to ALP suggested by the ld TPO in his order dated 29.1.2013 (which was done vide illegal reference) and made addition to that extent in the reassessment proceedings completed

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BISHWANATH TEA CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

56,64,816 20% of above 5,71,32,963 Amount deposited with NABARD (as per certificate) 5,80,00,000 Admissible deduction: 5,71,32,963” 6. It can be seen from the aforesaid discussion of the AO in the order of Assessment dated 27.3.2002 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, together with its Annexure thereto that

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

reassessment proceedings. 10. Relevant bank statement of the assessee evidencing transactions with M/s Pushkar Trading and Holding Pvt Ltd and confirmation of accounts received by the party. 11. Objection filed by the assessee and disposal order by AO. 12. Reply filed by the assessee dated 22-10-2018. 13. Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated

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.”

vii) Indo Global Techno Trade Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1616/CHD/2018) [ITAT- Chandigarh] dated 15.06.2020 (viii) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (2017) 395 ITR 677 [Del-HC] (ix) PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) dated 08.10.2015 5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 151(2) dated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on invalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022 Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal provision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on invalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on invalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal provision