Kusum Goyal v. ITO

329 ITR 283High Court2010#5605 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 127 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 120 Section 158BD Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 127(1)section 158bd section 120 section 127 section 158b section 158 section 12 section 271(1)section 271 section 143(2)section 271(1)(c)section 142

Judgments citing Kusum Goyal v. ITO

RITU PATWARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 288/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6Section 68

…n. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: 3 Ritu Patwari 1. PCIT vs. Manish Jain in ITAT/82/2025 IA No.GA/2/2025 of Calcutta High Court 2. Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi HC) 3. Kusum Goyal vs. ITO [2010] 329 ITR 283 (Cal) of Calcutta High Court 5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order. 6. Before adverting to the issue raised by the assessee, it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of hearing of the case, the ld. DR sought 15 days’ time to submit a written submission but still the department did not file any submission to counter…

MUZAFFAR NAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramuzaffar Nagar Vs. National Faceless Appeal Development Authority Centre (Nfac) C/O C.S. Anand, Delhi Advocate, 104 Pankaj Tower, 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaalm0437D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 12ASection 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ord before us. In spite of opportunity being given to the Ld. DR he has not been able to submit the same. In this regard, we have considered the following judgments passed by the different judicial forum as relied upon by the Ld. AR: “1. Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO ]329 ITR 283 (Cal)] 2. Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1798 of 2009 (SC)] 3. CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia [404 ITR 63 (Bom)] 4. ITO Vs. M/s Ghagyaarna Gems & Jewellary Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 2/RPR/2021 (Order dated 31.01.2025)]” P a g e | 5 Muzaffar Nagar Development Authority (AY: 2014-15) 7. The assessment cannot be automatically…

GANGES TIEUP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ganges Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 9(1), 127, 1St Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg6645G Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…is concerned that the file cannot be transferred by one AO to another AO in the same jurisdiction without an order of PCIT u/s 127(3) of the Act the ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Calcutta). Ganges Tieup Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 08. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. DR argued that if the assessee has any objection to the jurisdiction of the AO who framed the assessment, then the assessee should have objected to it within 30 days of the issue of notice. In defense of the argument of…

NANDLAL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Nandlal Commercial Private Ward 3(1), Kolkata Limited, Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Mahendra Nath Roy, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Bye Lane, Kolkata-711101, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcn2898K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…urisdiction. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Eversafe Securities Pvt. ltd. In ITAT/156/2022, IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022 vide order dated 02.01.2023 & Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Calcutta), wherein it has held that if the ld. AO passing the assessment order has not issued the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, then he has no authority to frame the assessment. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (supra), held as under: - “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2 had sought to justify h…

BHAN BAI, BHILAI,DURG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. No.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ayrpb7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 271(1)(c)

…u/s.127 of the Act, and an A.O cannot on his own transfer an income tax file to another officer in the absence of the aforesaid order is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO and Ors. (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: 6 Smt. Bhan Bai Vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai "The question which falls for consideration is whether under section 127 of the Act an Assessing Officer on his own can transfer an income tax file to another officer and whether an order is required to be pas…

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, DR

Section 10(38)Section 127(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…is concerned that the file cannot be transferred by one AO to another AO in the same jurisdiction without an order of PCIT u/s 127(3) of the Act the ld counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Calcutta). 06. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. DR argued that if the assessee has any objection to the jurisdiction of the AO who framed the assessment, then the assessee should have objected to it within 30 days of the issue of notice. In defense of the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee re…

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SURESH KUMAR JETHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.451/Rpr/2024 Co. No.18/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Suresh Kumar Jethwani Prop. Reena Electronics, Oppo. Manju Mamta, M.G.Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aebpj7686N ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 69A

…the incumbent Assessing Officer does not acquire any valid jurisdiction over the assessee for framing assessment. The Ld. Counsel in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO and Ors, (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal.) (ii) Singhal Marketing Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, ITA No.469/RPR/2024, dated 28.02.2025 9. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently submitted that as per Section 124(3)(a) of the Act, if the assessee had any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, then the same could have been only raised w…

PRAKASH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 12ASection 141(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rmed by the CIT(A) in the case of present assessee are hereby quashed. We order accordingly. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. " F.B) Further we may rely upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case "Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal.HC)" where it was held as under: "Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income-tax authorities Power to transfer cases Assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09- Whether Assessing Officer on his own cannot transfer an income-tax file to another officer as he is required to pass an order to that effect under section 127(3) Held, yes" The operati…

DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. MANJULA SHUKLA, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 285/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Section 124(3)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ITO,Wd-34(2), Kolkata (who did not enjoy jurisdiction) is non-est in law and, therefore, is bad in law and transfer of the jurisdiction as contemplated u/s. 127 of the Act to ITO, Wd-6(l), Kolkata. The Hon'’ble jurisdictional High Court in Kusum Goyal (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal) has clearly spelt out that the ITO on its own cannot transfer the jurisdiction without order from the competent authority. In this case, we note that there is no mention in the assessment order of any transfer order passed by the concerned CIT-12, therefore, the contention of the ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata that the jurisdiction has been transf…

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…(1) Kolhapur and thereafter, once the case got transferred to ward 2(3) Kolhapur, there was no need for any further notice as claimed by the assessee. The assessee relies on decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal) which is misplaced in this scenario since substantially different in facts from the case of the assessee. When the assessee has not filed return of income, he was treated as new assessee and the case got transferred from ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur to ITO Ward 2(3) Kolhapur. The original notice was already issued to the Assessee by ITO Ward 2(1)…

GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 375/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Gaya Prasad Bajaj, V. Income Tax Officer, 34-A, Chak Zero Road, Ward-1(2) Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Aampb9895N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…assessment. In support of his contention, he has relied upon various decisions as under: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow v/s Dalipur Construction (P) LTD. ITA No. 43 of 2015 1. Kusum Goyal v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (Calcutta High Court), 2. {2010} 329 ITR 283 3. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai Vs. M/s Tata sons Ltd., Bombay, ITA No. 2519/Mum./2019 (ITAT Mumbai) L.P. Mohammed Salim Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin (SC). Civil 4. Appeal Nos. 2946-2956 of 2008 4. The learned AR has also referred to a series of other decisions on the point that in the absence of the jurisdiction from JCIT to Income Tax Officer,…

SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2456/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 2456/Kol/2019 Shivam Dhatu Udyog Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2456/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shivam Dhatu Udyog Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- (PAN: AAICS8785R) tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 24.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2021 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Sandeep Choube, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the asse…

ITO, WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ANAMIKA DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2179/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Bleshri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Bleshri S.S. Godara, Jm] A.Y 2012-13 Income Tax Officer Vs. Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Ward 10(1), Ad-76, Salt Lake City, Sector P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Kolkata-64 Floor, Kolkata-69 Pan No. Aaica 4631 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) C.O No. 34/Kol/2019 [A/O Ita No. 2179/Kol/2016] Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Ad-76, Salt Lake City Ward-10(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square Sector, Kolkatka-64 Kolkata-69 ("तया"ेपक/Cross-Objector) (""यथ" /Respondent) आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent : Smt.Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’bleShri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Hon’bleShri S.S. Godara, JM] A.Y 2012-13 Income Tax Officer Vs. Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Ward 10(1), AD-76, Salt Lake City, Sector P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3rd Kolkata-64 Floor, Kolkata-69 PAN No. AAICA 4631 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) C.O No. 34/Kol/2019 [a/o ITA No. 2179/Kol/2016] Anamika Dealcom Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer AD-76, Salt Lake City Ward-10(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square Sector, Kolkatka-64 Kolkata-69 ("तया"ेपक/Cross-objector) (""यथ" /Respondent) आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shr…

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 881/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and SumitFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 224Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.881/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward-21(1) Raj Kumar & Associates, CAs, L- New Delhi. 7A (LGF), South Extension Part- II, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACR 0024N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: S/Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Sumit Goel, CA Respondent by: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 22 05 2019 Date of pronouncement: 09 08 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been f…

JELLY COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 196/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jelly Commotrade Pvt. Ltd…..…………….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O. Rsvpc & Company 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road Suite No. 613 Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaccj 0218 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Kolkata……........................................……………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.K. Jain, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th , 2019 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, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/11/2016, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is In The Business Of Investments. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 18/07/2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,370/-. The Assessing Officer Processed The Return U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Thereafter The Assessment Was Re-Opened & An Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 24/11/2011, Assessing The Total Income At Rs.63,670/-. This Order Was Set Aside By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata, Vide Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 25/03/2014 & The Assessing Officer Was Directed To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order For Making Necessary Enquiries & Verifications As Mandated By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata.

Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 68

…, serve the purpose. When challenged, the department has to file the necessary orders in support of the contentions that ITO Wd-7(1) has jurisdiction in this case. 11. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kusum Goyal vs. ITO reported in (2010) 329 ITR 283, held as follows:- “10. It is evident that respondent No. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer and no order under section 127 is required to be passed. In my view, the letter/notice dated October 21, 2009 is patently illegal since it has been held in this jud…

D CRAFT ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1461/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…note that Pr. CIT/CIT-12, Kolkata under whom ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata functioned has not issued any order of transfer of the jurisdiction as contemplated u/s. 127 of the Act to ITO, Wd-6(1), Kolkata. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Kusum Goyal (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal) has clearly spelt out that the ITO on its own cannot transfer the jurisdiction without order from the competent authority. In this case, we note that there is no mention in the assessment order of any transfer order passed by the concerned CIT-12, therefore, the contention of the ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata that the jurisdiction has been transf…

I.T.O, WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

…ening notice u/s. 147 of the Act and thereafter reassessment order both are without having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Goel Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Kol) wherein it is observed that the DCIT had south to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically got vested with the jurisdictional officer and no order u/s. 127 of the Act was required to be passed. The letter/notice dated 21.10.2009 was patently illegal since although in case of transfer within the same city, locality o…

I.T.O,WARD-46(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. TRIPURARI SINGH., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 434/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

TRIPURARI SINGH.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 46,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2