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

270A and 271AAB as explained above while considering as to what material would constitute incriminating for the purposes of assessment of total income under section 153A/C. 20. The provisions of section 153A/153C are not the normal assessment provisions like 143(3); rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of evasion of taxable income based on evidences

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

270A sub section 1 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the records and Anita Basak; A.Y. 2018-19 therefore, the ld. AO was not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the accounts. Accordingly, the books of accounts were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and the income of the assessee

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the Act. 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in this regard. We find that the Ld. DRP has given the following directions: “The AO is accordingly directed to allow the said expenditure after due verification that the membership

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the Act. 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in this regard. We find that the Ld. DRP has given the following directions: “The AO is accordingly directed to allow the said expenditure after due verification that the membership

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

68,668/-, which is erroneous and not as per law. 10.0 The Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time

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

270A of Income Tax Act 1961, is initiated for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income on the above issue”. 4. On perusal of the assessment order, ld. PCIT took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The copy of the show-cause notice /letter dated 01.02.2022 has been placed on pages

RISHI F.L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2018-19 Rishi F.L. On Shop, Income Tax Officer, 41/1, K.N. Road, Ranibagan, Vs Ward – 42(2), Murshidabad - 742101 Murshidabad-742101 (Pan: Aahfr9315E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that