M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

246A of the Act, order u/s 92CA or its rectification order u/s 154 of the Act passed by the TPO is 2 I.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Philips India Limited not an appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he accordingly dismissed both the appeals being non-maintainable. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders

TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.” 4.1. Since the required Form No. 68

ADVENT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

246A of the Act. The said appeal subsequently migrated to “NFAC”. During appellate proceedings, an e-notice for providing written submissions were issued to assessee on 23/12/2020 which remained un-complied with till date. Meaning thereby, assessee did not have anything to furnish substantiate its contentions. I find that assessment order passed

ADVENT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

246A of the Act. The said appeal subsequently migrated to “NFAC”. During appellate proceedings, an e-notice for providing written submissions were issued to assessee on 23/12/2020 which remained un-complied with till date. Meaning thereby, assessee did not have anything to furnish substantiate its contentions. I find that assessment order passed

NISHTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act besides, relying upon other judicial I.T.A. No.: 1160/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd. pronouncements for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by giving its finding as extracted under: “3. Findings and Decision of the Appellate Authority- 3.1 The appellant has preferred this appeal against

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of the IT Act 1961 on the grounds of unexplained cash credit which is not correct. For that the observation and contention of the L d. Assessing Officer in completing the assessment by making arbitrary disallowance and addition under the head unexplained cash credit is not correct. 2.General: For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

68, Sonali Apartment, 8/2A, Alipur Park Road, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India. 3. THAT I am a Director of TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, having PAN:AACCT5883D and CIN:U72900WB2006PTC112124, having its Registered Office at BIPLBuilding-C.Block-EP&GP, Sector-V,Salt Lake City, India, 700091 Twenty-four Parganas North, Salt Lake, West Bengal, 4. THAT I filed an appeal before

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act, ₹14,74,200/- as undisclosed income and ₹25,251/- as the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order and noted that

SUDHIR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,19,750/-being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act while a sum of Rs. 4,84,000/- being 2% of the accommodation entry was added u/s 69C of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 2,25,13,079/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ADIDARSHAN TRADEWING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 towards additions made for share capital of Rs. 48,470/- and share premium of Rs. 4,84,21,530/- which is without proper basis, reason or justification. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer in charging interest

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68. 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “The assessee filed his return showing a total income of Rs.2,43,444/-. The matter

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 69,17,000/-, and Ground No. 8 related to the addition of Rs. 10,23,120/- on account of unverified sundry creditors. No statement of facts has been filed along with the appeal memo. However, the same as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been culled out from Form

M/S. POSITIVE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act at ₹ 1,62,90,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated I.T.A. No.: 2492/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 03.05.2024 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD