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.

u/s 143(3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 14 7(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such

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)

U/s 147 of the Act except to say that the AO had already discussed the issue while passing the order stating therein that there was an excess allowance of business expenditure which resulted in underassessment of business income and therefore confirmed the order passed by the AO. We note that in order to initiate the reassessment proceedings, the notice under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

91-33-2243 0271\nFax: (033) 40661036\nDated 17th December 2013\nTo,\nThe D. C. I. T.,\nCentral Circle - VI,\n3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,\n110, Shanti Palli,\nKolkata - 700 107\nSir,\n60\nSub: Furnishing of Information/document in respect of M/S Maithan Ceramic Ltd. for the Financial\nYear 2010-11 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.\nRef: Your letter

SRI NEERAJ UMA SHANKAR MURARKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

91,450/- through bogus entities. through bogus entities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped that income chargeable

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]

91 iii. City Mill Distributors P Ltd. 291 ITR 1 (SC) Distributors P Ltd. 291 ITR 1 (SC) f) The ld. counsel alternatively submitted t The ld. counsel alternatively submitted that, the reopening is bad in law for the reason the reopening is bad in law for the reason that the original assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons to believe as detailed under :- "From the reliable sources, it has come to notice that M/s Sunder Lal Mohan Lal Sharda & others had received Rs. 20852219/- as mining lease expenditure and Rs.73691121 as Transfer of Mining lease (Capital Expenditure) from M/s Sharda Mines Pvt. Ltd. (Total Rs.94543340) during

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

ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

91 of the Paper Book which is the approval\ngranted by the PCIT, to reopen the assessment, submitted that it is\nonly mentioned in the approval column as 'yes it is fit case'.\nTherefore, such approval granted by the Id. PCIT is not valid as he has\nnot recorded his satisfaction to the reasons recorded recorded

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

91,28,960/-.\n06. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee by directing the Id. AO to delete the additions. However,\nthe legal issue raised in ground no.3 was rejected and dismissed.\n07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the assessment in this case

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(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. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

91,126/- on which TDS deducted but deposited belatedly to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), the only contention of the assessee was that the assessment cannot be re-opened u/s. 147 without issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Further, contended

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, HOOGLY, HOOGHLY vs. SWAPAN KUMAR MONDAL, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

91,788/-, for the Assessment Year 2008-09. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act, was conducted in the premises of M/s. Mondal Construction Company Ltd., the sole proprietary concerned of the assessee, on 24/01/2008. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, was issued on 26/05/2011, reopening the assessment u/s 147. The Assessing Officer at para 3 of his order

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

91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal issue raised in ground no.3 was rejected and dismissed. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment in this case

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

91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal issue raised in ground no.3 was rejected and dismissed. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment in this case

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

91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal issue raised in ground no.3 was rejected and dismissed. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment in this case

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

91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal issue raised in ground no.3 was rejected and dismissed. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment in this case

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

section 142(1) of the Act framed the reassessment at a sum of Rs. 23,91,96,130/- by making addition of Rs. 14,66,34,169/- on account of unexplained discrepancy in stock. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who while adjudicating the legal issue raised

DCIT,CIR-11, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

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

91,77,514/-. An order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) was passed by the AO on 30.12.2009 computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,17,06,690/-. 2 ITA Nos.2306&2307/Kol/2013 & CO.Nos.135/Kol/2013 M/s.Century Plyboards (India)Ltd. A.Yrs.2007-08 & 2008-09 3. The AO issued a notice u/s