CIT(Exemption) v. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education

448 ITR 695High Court2022#7577 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also reported as

148 Taxmann.com 125

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 68Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 10(38)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 255(4)section 148(2)maximum marginal ratebogus ltcgkelvinatorincome escaping assessmentlive linksection 246borrowed satisfactionreason to believeescapement of income

Judgments citing CIT(Exemption) v. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education

AMPI FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2831/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-2013) Ampi Finance Limited, (Successor Company of Atlantic Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.), 3rd Floor, 22, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AACCA3680R] …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Lata Goyal, CA Department represented by : Ranu Biswas, CIT,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…-, instead the only addition made is related to disallowance of loss of Rs.57,86,077/- claimed on purchase and sale of shares of Wagend Indra Ventures Ltd. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: a. CIT (E) vs. B P Poddar Foundation for Education [2022] 448 ITR 695 (Cal SC) b. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) c. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 336 ITR 136 (Del) d. M/s Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (2014) 9 TMI 1142 8. Upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties and we have perused the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 which is as under: 8.1 We have also gone through the reassessment…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…-, instead the only addition made is related to disallowance of loss of Rs.57,86,077/- claimed on purchase and sale of shares of Wagend Indra Ventures Ltd. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: a. CIT (E) vs. B P Poddar Foundation for Education [2022] 448 ITR 695 (Cal SC) b. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) c. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 336 ITR 136 (Del) d. M/s Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (2014) 9 TMI 1142 8. Upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties and we have perused the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 which is as under: 8.1 We have also gone through the reassessment…

SHRI RAKESH ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(8), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2159/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Sh. Rakesh Arora Ito C-4, 4123 Ward- 30 (8) Vasant Kunj, Vs Delhi Delhi-110070 Pan No.Aaepa727P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Sh. Rakesh Arora ITO C-4, 4123 Ward- 30 (8) Vasant Kunj, Vs Delhi Delhi-110070 Pan No.AAEPA727P Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A), Delhi-110025 dated 06.02.2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 in sustaining various ad…

PRITHVI PAL SINGH LAMBA,ROHTAK vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4564/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4564/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1238, Subhash Nagar, Ward-50(3), Rohtak, Haryana-124001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpl0050C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1076483764 (1) Dated 27.05.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

…vement claimed at the assessee’s behest was not part of the learned Assessing Officer reopening reasons. The question as to whether such a reopening is sustainable or not, is no more res integra in light of CIT Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) and Mahesh Kumar [TS-1030-ITAT-2025 (Del)] (TM) wherein settling the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department. I accordingly reject the Revenue’s foregoing 3 Prithvi Pal Singh Lamba vehement contentions to quash the impugned reopening itself in very terms. 5. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered…

LIOYD'S REGISTER OF SHIPPING (NOW KNOWN AS LIOYD 'S REGISTER GROUP LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1457/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Lloyd’S Register Of Shipping Dy. Cit (It)-3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (Now Known As Lloyd’S Register Group Ltd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 17Th Floor, Unit No. 1702, 1703 & Vs. 1704, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Gen 4/1, Ttc, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400 710

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Lloyd’s Register of Shipping Dy. CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) 16th Floor, Air India Building, (Now known as Lloyd’s Register Group Ltd.) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 17th Floor, Unit No. 1702, 1703 and Vs. 1704, Building Q2, Aurum Q Parc, Gen 4/1, TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400 710 PAN/GIR No. AAACL 2209 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey,…

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…mitted that the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education vs ACIT (ITA No. 1863/Kol/2019 decided on 13.11.2019) which has been confirmed by the Calcutta High Court by order dated 13.09.2022 reported in 448 ITR 695 (Calcutta). It is submitted that the learned Accountant Member was not justified in distinguishing these decisions on the ground that in these cases the Assessing Officer had accepted the explanation and had not made any addition. It is submitted that a situation where the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the basis of the reasons r…

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

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

ITA 225/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 148

…assessment was based, no addition was made by Assessing Officer in order of reassessment, he could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. d. CIT(Exemption) vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education [2022] 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) Though the Explanation 3 inserted by the amendment empowers the Assessing Officer to assess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment when such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…mitted that the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education vs ACIT (ITA No. 1863/Kol/2019 decided on 13.11.2019) which has been confirmed by the Calcutta High Court by order dated 13.09.2022 reported in 448 ITR 695 (Calcutta). It is submitted that the learned Accountant Member was not justified in distinguishing these decisions on the ground that in these cases the Assessing Officer had accepted the explanation and had not made any addition. It is submitted that a situation where the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the basis of the reasons r…

EXCEL INFOTECH LIMITES,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1065/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1065/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Excel Infotech Ltd., Vs Acit, Sachin Saxena & Co., Central Circle-30, Office No. 101 & 102, 1St Floor, A-1, New Delhi-110055 Madhuban Tower, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2098K Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. & Sh. Harshit Chauhan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10, Arises Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S In Case No. 161/16- 17/2595 Dated 04.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 3

…deleted in very terms. 7. Lastly comes the enhancement addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made by the CIT(A) by exercising his statutory jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act. We first of all quote CIT (Exemptions) vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) to hold that once the former twin additions herein forming part of the Assessing Officer’s re-opening reasons stand deleted, the re-opening itself does not survive. This is indeed coupled with the fact that it has admittedly come on record that making this third addition during the course of enhancement by the CIT(A) amounts to changing th…

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, बी न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1677/KOL/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata PAN No. :AFNPK 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…ting altogether. And that case law N. Govindaraju vs. ITO (2015) 60 taxmann.com 333 (Kar.) has already decided the very issue in department’s favour. 6. The assessee, on the other hand, quotes CIT (E) v. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education vs. BP (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) wherein their lordships; dealing which instance wherein the Assessing Officer had initiated 148/147 proceeding for a single head of income and made various other additions followed by the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings deleting the former head and upholding the latter ones, concludes that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…ting altogether. And that case law N. Govindaraju vs. ITO (2015) 60 taxmann.com 333 (Kar.) has already decided the very issue in department’s favour. 6. The assessee, on the other hand, quotes CIT (E) v. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education vs. BP (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal.) wherein their lordships; dealing which instance wherein the Assessing Officer had initiated 148/147 proceeding for a single head of income and made various other additions followed by the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings deleting the former head and upholding the latter ones, concludes that such a reopening itself is not sustainable in…

M/S R.S.DARSHAN SINGH MOTORS CAR FINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

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

ITA 265/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…e genuineness of the information hence issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is wrong, illegal and liable to be quashed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee cited following decisions: - CIT(Exemption) vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education reported in [2022] 448 ITR 695 (Calcutta). CIT vs. Lakshmangarh Estate &trading Co. (2014)220Taxman122(Kolkata) Peerless General Finance And Investment Co.Ltd. vs. Deputy commissioner of Income Tax reprted in (2005)273ITR 16 Kolkata 4. On the contrary, ld. D/R submitted that it is the duty of the assessee to produce the documents and onus lies upon him to establish that there…

KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/GTY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 263

…(ii) Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar Vs. ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bom.); (iii) CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.); (v) CIT (Exemp.) Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal). 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that Explanation 3 to section 147 provides that Ld. AO may assess or re-assess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstandi…

CIT(Exemption) v. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (448 ITR 695) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax