KGVK AGRO LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-2., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

68 or the sales representing out of regular business. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner is fully justified in taking cognizance of the issue. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before we embark upon an enquiry on the facts and issues agitated before us to find out whether the action

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

68 of the Act at Rs.12,04,00,100/- and disallowance of preliminary expenses amounting to Rs.18,634/-. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and framed order dt. 02/12/2015 holding that the assessment order dt. 14/03/2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years

LAKSHMI DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA

sections": [ "147", "148", "68", "133(6)", "151", "144A", "250" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the legality of the reassessment

SATYAJIT DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.301/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyajit Das……………………...................................................……Appellant Moubesia, Dhulasimla, Uluberia, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Agvpd4627P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ 1. For That Both The Impugned Order Of Assessment & The Appellate Order Dated 28.12.2017 & 20.11.2019 Respectively Are Bad In Law & Based On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts. 2. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining The Assessment, As The Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Invoking

Section 68 has no application in this case. 3. FOR THAT in any event the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of an astronomical sum of Rs.78,00,000/- to your appellant's income without considering the actual status and real income of the appellant. 4. FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reopening

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 144A of the Act is illegal and void-ab-initio, liable to be deleted.  He took the bench through the specific directions dated March 22,2016, issued by the Addl. CIT, marked and placed at Page 31-32 of the paper book. The Addl. CIT has specifically directed the AO to refer the matter to valuation officer

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act at Rs. 19 lakh. 10. Before proceeding to examine the issues stated above, we find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section which reads as under: "263(1) The Commissioner may call

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

144A of the Act, a Joint Commissioner may, on his own motion or on a reference being made to him by the Assessing Officer or on the application of an assessee, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an assessment is pending and, if he considers that, having regard to the nature of the case

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

144A of the Act, a Joint Commissioner may, on his own motion or on a reference being made to him by the Assessing Officer or on the application of an assessee, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an assessment is pending and, if he considers that, having regard to the nature of the case

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act accordingly vide order dated 30.12.2016 assessed the income at Rs. 1,17,342/-. 7. Again in the second round of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were commenced by ld. Pr. CIT calling for the assessment records forming part of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 and issued show cause notice dated 16.01.2019 raising the following

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP, 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]

68 of the Act which is erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law. b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO and concluded that the assessee has failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of the three parties when

SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-40(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]

68 of the Act which is erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law. b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO and concluded that the assessee has failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of the three parties when

DEWARS GARAGE LIMITED ,ACIT vs. A CIT-5 (1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. 9.1. In the instant case, the auditor has provided all these details in the audit report of the alleged sum received from M/s. DGIAPL, shown as a loan received by the assessee. Now whether the assessing officer has carried out any investigation or has examined the said transaction during the course of assessment proceedings relating

SRIMANTA KUMAR SHIT,PURBA MEDINAPORE vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 27(2), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

68,865/- Act Addition on account of Fixed Rs.2,46,573/- deposit u/s 69A 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.01.2020 which was disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A)-22 vide order dated 16.07.2024 confirming the additions made by the Id.AO. 7. Ultimately being aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal

TRIMURTI GRIHANIRMAN PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

MONIKA MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

JAI SALASAR BALAJI INDUSTRIES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

M/S PRABHU POLY PIPERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit towards accommodation entry taken from alleged shell company namely M/s. Waltare Investments Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Pr. CIT observed that since the assessee company has also taken unsecured loan from M/s. Waltare Investments Pvt. Ltd. and in another group concern, ld. AO has treated M/s. Waltare Investments Pvt. Ltd. as shell/paper company

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)

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section