ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various occasions and on few occasions, there was no compliance, however the assessee filed the details/ evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has received unsecured loans from Funidea Promoters Limited of ₹1.00 Cr during the year. Finally, the ld. AO treated

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. A.O. also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided

K.A.WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

68 of the Act, the Bench has been consistently remanding , the Bench has been consistently remanding such matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

1,81,50,000/-, I find that the AO has admitted paragraph 6 on page 3 of his order that as per books of the appellant, he had raised ne said amounts as share capital/premium in that year. This fact has been reiterated by the appellant in his reply to the showcause issued by the AO, in this regard

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

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

1). 32. It is further to point out that the provision of Section 153A are non obstanse clause which does not have any conditions of seized material or incriminating material for making assessment, filing of return or conditions for issuance of notice u/s. 153A. Wherever the search has been conducted 153A has to be issued indiscriminately without any seized

DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAAN CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1193/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit,Cc-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maan Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccm 0388 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) / 153D / 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 1,63,00,000/- towards share capital / share application

R A REALTORS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without considering the additional ground being legal ground taken by the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal by taking the above legal ground that the concerned Assessing Officer passing

SHRI RAGHVENDRA MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax {Appeals}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.148657/- made on account of Bogus Commission. 4. That the ld. ClT{A}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming to the extent of Rs.1626558/- made

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

68. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions. The substituted provisions apply retrospectively for past assessment years as well. On 1 April 2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Therefore, for issuing a reassessment notice under section

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

68. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions. The substituted provisions apply retrospectively for past assessment years as well. On 1 April 2021, TOLA was still in existence, and the Revenue could not have ignored the application of TOLA and its notifications. Therefore, for issuing a reassessment notice under section

M/S EVERSAFE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order and confirmed the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2 I.T.A. No. 604/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Eversafe Securities Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S J R ROADLINES PVT. LTD.,GUJRAT vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S J R Roadlines Pvt. Ltd..............................................…………………Appellant Plot No.14, Sector 8, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat-370201. [Pan: Aadcp9373R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata………...........……………….....………..…..Respondent Present: For The Assessee: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Department: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, On 06.01.2022 Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, On 26.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : January 06, 2022 & May 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter 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:

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when no enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” Apart from the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken the following additional/legal grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date\nof receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the\nAssessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:\n5.2.14. Hence, from a bare reading of section 153C, it is clear that section 153C inter-\nalia provides that notwithstanding anything contained

SMT. NITA SETHIA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Nita Sethia V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 5, Janki Shah Road, 1St 3(3), 110, Shanti Pally, Floor, Hastings, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700022 Poorva, E.M. Bye Pass, [Pan No.Ajwps 8335 H] Nr. Ruby Hospital, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.930/Acit,Cc-3(3)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 153A R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Her Instant Appeal. Her Former Legal Grievance Challenges Validity Of Sec. 153A Proceedings In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search. This Follows Her Latter Substantive Ground On Merits That The Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating Long

section 153A of the Act would become redundant and would lose its relevance. Hence the arguments advanced by the ld DR in this regard deserves to be dismissed. 8.8. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the assessment framed u/s 143(1) of the Act for the Asst

KISHOREPUR PASCHIMANCHAL S K U S LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

JAGANNATH KARBARH DESHAPRAN SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

M/S. DIGNAGAR SAMABAI KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High 5 AY: 2018-19 M/s. Dignagar Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section