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]

TDS was deducted and deposited with the Govt. Treasury. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was framed vide order dated 18.1.2013 assessing the income at Rs. 23,86,168/- by making addition in respect of four disallowance namely: i) Disallowance of artist remuneration ii) Disallowance of studio hire charges iii) Disallowance of interest paid

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

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

TDS on commission payment was duly explained before the ld.AO. The assessee requested the AO to decide whether the re-assessment u/s. 147 is maintainable without thereby issuance of notice u/s. 147. 8. Now, we may refer to the Tribunal order in the case of (supra) as relied by the CIT-A. In that case, the Tribunal decided the issue

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

147 of the Act was merely on the basis of information received from ACIT, Central-2 (TDS), Kolkata. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have disallowed only 30% of the addition on account of non-deduction of TDS keeping in view the amendment to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. For that the appellant

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)

TDS on various items. It appears that no tax has been deducted at source on such payout. As such it should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961, which was not done. f. The assessee has not paid sum of Rs. 24,52,623/- on a/c of Central Excise

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)

TDS on various items. It appears that no tax has been deducted at source on such payout. As such it should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961, which was not done. f. The assessee has not paid sum of Rs. 24,52,623/- on a/c of Central Excise

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

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)

TDS was duly deducted by the Assessee. 8. First of all, let us examine the findings of the ld CIT(A) in respect of validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, which are given below for ready reference: 10 Price Waterhouse & Co. (now known as Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants LLP) “I have perused the detailed

M/S. ARATI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO.,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2152/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

147 of the IT Act, 1961.” 5. The Assessing Officer then assessed the income of the firm at Rs.38,50,630/- i.e. making an addition of Rs. 40,15,188/- The breakup of the addition are as follows: (a) Partners Capital Rs. 14,17,966/- (b) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs. 20,69,078/- (c) Turnover difference

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of\nfindings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s\n133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied\nwith the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

u/s 147 of the Act (income escaping assessment). In the reassessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had not disclosed interest on A.Yr.2008-09 savings bank account to the extent of Rs.2,224.34. The assessee agreed to the action of the AO in bringing to tax the aforesaid interest income after giving credit to TDS

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and also the order passed u/s 147/11/254/143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2017. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income electronically on 12.10.2010 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,76,98,50,492/-. Thereafter the assessee revised the return on 28.03.2012 in which the TDS

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and also the order passed u/s 147/11/254/143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2017. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income electronically on 12.10.2010 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,76,98,50,492/-. Thereafter the assessee revised the return on 28.03.2012 in which the TDS

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 without appreciating the fact that the same has been done in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Act on fresh application of mind on the same set of facts, more so when there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose truly and fully all the facts necessary for completion

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reachasia……………………..……………..............................……….……Appellant 109/28, Hazra Road, Kol- 700026. [Pan: Aagrf2430K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 03, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

reassessment of the assessee u/s 147 can only be made subject to the satisfaction of the condition envisaged under 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act which states an assessment has been made u/s 143(3), the reopening u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the income has escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of true

LMJ LOGISTICS LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2003-04 Lmj Logistics Ltd., V/S. Dcit, Circle-2, 30, J.L. Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7Th Kolkata-16 [Pan No.Aabcp 8494 K] Floor, Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess