MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act which was replied on 18.03.2019 in which it was pointed out that the information did not pertain to AY 2010-11 but to AY 11-12. It was also stated before the AO that AY 2011-12 was reopened and after necessary verification, the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3)/147

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

GPT SONS PVT. LTD(FOR GPT VENTURE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. -3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Gpt Sons Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (For Gpt Venture Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Since Amalgamated) 3(1), Kolkata. Vs. Jc-25, Gpt Centre, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700098. (Pan: Aabcp2721K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata erred in not considering/dealing with the grounds and submissions raised by the Appellant Assessee Company contending that the impugned reassessment proceedings and the resultant reassessment order dated 29th December, 2018 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

292B of the Act. 6. In addition to the above, it was further submitted by him that the issue with regard to illegality in the original assessment order cannot be raised here during the proceedings challenging the order u/s 263. It was further submitted by him that in any case, the ld.CIT had proper jurisdiction to make revision

M/S BASUNDHARA GOODS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Basundhara Goods (P) Ltd.................................…………………………..........Appellant (Formerly Merged With Param Mitra Investments Ltd.)Kolkata 129, Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110 035 [Pan : Aadcb 1931 H] Income Tax Officer Kolkata..…………………………………………………………......Respondent Ward 5(4), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 23, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 29.02.2016. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Dealing & Investment. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 14.08.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 749/-. In The Assessment Originally Completed Under Section 147/143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.04.2010, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At Rs. 17,720/-. The Said Assessment Was Subsequently Set Aside By The Ld. Cit Vide An Order

68 by treating the share capital contribution including the share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In Ground No. 12 of this appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

292B of the Act. 6. In addition to the above, it was further submitted by him that the issue with regard to illegality in the original assessment order cannot be raised here during the proceedings challenging the order u/s 263. It was further I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd. submitted by him that

ITO, WD-47(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAMANAND KEDIA, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue on all the grounds is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.594/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-08) Ito Ward-47(3), Vs. Sri Ramanand Kedia, 3, Govt. Place (West). 108/4/1, Adinath Apartment, Kolkata-700001 G.T.Road, Howrah-711 106 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpk 4042 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri M.D.Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-2008, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.79/Cit(A)-14/Wd-46(3)/12-13, Dated 13.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Cloths. Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 29.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,06,368/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S.143(2) Was Issued. Thereafter The Ao Framed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ld. Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal

292B to validate mandatory requirement of service as postulated in section 143(2). As regards the last notice issued on 24-11-2009 fixing the hearing on 01-12-2009, the emotional finding of the Assessing Officer as earlier reproduced, has been that "Being encumbered by the luggage of non compliance setting aside volley of requests the assessee again

M/S ESTEEM TRADECOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Esteem Tradecom Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kolkata-Ii, 64, Bentick Street, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700069. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan: Aaace 5486 D Assessment Year:2009-10

68 in its first year of incorporation. G. After amalgamation, no order can be passed u/s 263 in the name of the amalgamating company. But, where the intention of the assessee is to defraud the Revenue by either filing returns, after amalgamation, in the old name or otherwise, then the order passed in the old name is valid. H. Order

M/S D.D.DEPOSITS & ADVANCES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S D.D. Deposits & V/S. Commissioner Of Income Advances Pvt. Ltd., 16, Tax, Kolkata-1, P-7, G.C. Avenue, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-72 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaacd 5388 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolkata’S Order Dated 04.03.2013, Revising The Re-Assessment In Question Dated 28.12.2010 Thereby Terming The Same To Be Erroneous Causing Prejudice To The Interest Of The Revenue, Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Lis Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Deem It Appropriate First Of All To Reproduce Assessee’S Pleadings Reading As Under:- “1) For That The Order Of Ld. Cit Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2)For That The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Cit Is Without Jurisdiction, Hence Invalid.

68 in its first year of incorporation. G. After amalgamation, no order can be passed u/s 263 in the name of the amalgamating company. But, where the intention of the assessee is to defraud the Revenue by either: filing returns, after amalgamation, in the old name or otherwise, then the order passed in the old name is valid. H. Order

AJAY GOEL, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MANJU GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. 5. I have heard both the sides. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the notice under section 148 of 3 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir of Late Manju Goel) the Act was issued in the name of deceased person

SHRI KEDAR NATH DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

68,042/- III. Break up of Assessed Income & Additions made head wise : Asst.Year Commission Addition on Profit on Addition on Total Income account of sales account of Addition Assessed the assessed the profit (5=2+4) commission 2002-03 Rs.7,43,460 Rs.1,48,691/- ----- ----- Rs.1,48,691/- 2005-06 Rs.29,08,552/- Rs.5,81,710/- Rs.4,32,934/- Rs.1

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. 1.2. The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievances against the Ld. AO but could not succeed fully since the matter was remanded back to the file of Ld. AO with the following decisions: 2 Krishna Kumar Kedia “6. I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, assessment order