West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range

Dhanlaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

…on 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011.” 9.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range – I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows:- “Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yesWhether jurisdiction of Assessing Authorit…

Bhubaneshwari Developers (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

…on 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011.” 9.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range – I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows:- “Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yesWhether jurisdiction of Assessing Authorit…

Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

…on 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011.” 9.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range – I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows:- “Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root of jurisdiction can be raised for first time before Tribunal - Held, yesWhether jurisdiction of Assessing Authorit…

Dipti Sahana, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-23(1), Hooghly

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2015-16 Sanat Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Alaps 5590 C] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent Assessment Years: 2015-16 Dipti Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Awhps 6428 P] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent

…ent of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default or by agreement and the decision without urisdiction cannot be conferred b…

Sanat Kumar Sahana, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-23(1), Hooghly

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2015-16 Sanat Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Alaps 5590 C] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent Assessment Years: 2015-16 Dipti Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Awhps 6428 P] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent

…ent of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that Electricity Board” 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default or by agreement and the decision without urisdiction cannot be conferred b…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

…valid in the eye of law, for that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in the case of West Bengal M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year:2012-13 State Electricity Board reported in 278 ITR 218 (Cal) wherein it was held as follows: “The points raised : In exercise of the powers conferred under s. 120(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (IT Act), the jurisdiction in relation to Chapter XVII-B except s. 195 and those relating to s. 221 were conferred on newly created wards in a newly created income-tax range. Based on this creation of jurisdiction,…

K.A.Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(3), Kolkata

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 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, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

…e ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of the ITAT relied on the Judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of “West Bengal State Electricity Board” 278 ITR 21 278 ITR 218. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held 8. In that case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default or that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default or by agreement and the decision by agreement and the decision without jurisdiction is a nullity. The Hon'ble High Court also relied on a numbe…

Soma Roy, Bardwan vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Durgapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…tate West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Electricity Board vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range – I, reported in [2005] 278 ITR 218 (Cal.) has held as follows: has held as follows:- “Section 254 of the Income Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of Powers of - Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987- -88 - Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by Whether a question of law arising out of facts found by authorities and which went to root…