“within four years”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 147391 judgments

The decision most relied on for within four years is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on within four years

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO

221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court

125

citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation

305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Dass Khanna v. ITO

460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT

236 ITR 742 · 1999 · High Court

citing judgments

Reopening an assessment within four years to re-examine a deduction under Section 80HHC, which was wrongly allowed in the original assessment, is valid. This is illustrated by cases where reassessment was held valid for re-examining deductions based on how excise duty was treated in the balance sheet.

340 ITR 299 (Bom.) (v) Desai Bros. Ltd. v. DCIT

267 ITR 161 · 2004 · High Court

citing judgments

The first proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act applies when an assessment is re-opened within four years from the end of the assessment year. If the assessment year is within four years, the conditions of the proviso are met.

232 Taxman 414 (Del. HC) 4. Yum Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. DDIT

397 ITR 639 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The approval for reopening of assessment must be obtained from the prescribed authority, which depends on whether the assessment is being reopened within four years or beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT

313 ITR 170 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Reopening assessment proceedings under Section 147 is permissible within four years, even if full and true particulars were provided during the original assessment, provided the Assessing Officer forms a prima facie opinion of underassessment or escapement of income.

CIT v. Aquatic Remedies

406 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Sanction for reopening an assessment under Section 151 requires approval from the specified authority, and approval from a superior but different authority is invalid. Even if the reopening is within four years, the correct authority must grant approval.

Judgments citing within four years

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA 286/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

merit and render the decision in accordance with law. The sixth decision of Delhi High Court is in context of re-opening within four years where assessment is made u/s 143(3) which is not in the present case. In view of above, order passed u/s 147 in consequence ... wherein it was held "Whereas in a case where the initial assessment order is under section 143(3), and sought to be reopened within four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer has to base his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment

D.K Construction, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (3), Bhopal

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

ITA 23/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

Section 158A(1)Section 256Section 257Section 261Section 801B(10)Section 80I

approved on or after 1st April, 2004, the assessee can avail of the benefit provided completion certificate issued by the Local Authority is within four years from the end of the financial year in which the concerned housing project was approved by the Local Authority. If this condition

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

case of CIT v Usha International Ltd, has decided on the ratio wherein re assessment proceedings cannot be reopened u/s 147 even within four years if an Assessee had furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment, which in the instant case, the findings in the original

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 206/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that in this case, notice u/sec.148 has been issued within four years from the end of the assessment year. Also, no order u/sec.143(3) was passed prior to issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act. We have carefully

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

brought to notice by assessee under s/s (2) of section 154 of the Act. Such rectification is however can be carried out anytime within four years from the end of financial year in which order sought to be rectified was passed. Ostensibly the scope of rectification is bounded on threefold

Shri Abhay Dare, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

local authority on or after the 1 day of April 2004 63u but not later than 31" day of March 2005, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority: (iii) In case where a housing project

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

31st March 2021. According to the Income Tax Officer, in view of the above, Assessment Year 2015-2016 which falls under the category within four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3292/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Mahek SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

rent at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/0 per month to the Company owned and managed by the Trustees. Though, the assessee within four years from the execution of lease deed increased the rent from Rs.5.00 lacks to Rs.25.00 lacks per month. There is no dispute about the status

M/S Pallipuram Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and it’s stay petition, dismissed as infructuous

ITA 322/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Alan P Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 154Section 156Section 234ASection 234A(1)

answered by the ld. CIT(A) in the negative. Adverting to sec.154, he held that an order there-under could be passed within four years of the order proposed to be amended, so that the impugned order was in time. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 9B, Bansidhar Apartments, Circle-5, Gyanganga Classes, Ahmedabad Jawaharnagar, Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcj 0614 P अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 05.01.2016, Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. The Department Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding The Reassessment Proceedings As Void. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Reopened Within Four Years From The Relevant Assessment Year & The Issue Decided In Reassessment Proceedings Was Not Dealt With During Original Assessment Proceedings..

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

proceedings as void. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the assessment was reopened within four years from the relevant assessment year and the issue decided in reassessment proceedings was not dealt with during original assessment proceedings.. 2 ACIT

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

limit for completion of an assessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which provided that it shall be made "within four years from the end of the year in which the income, profit and gains were first assessable", it was held that the time limit

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2785/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Svadeshi Enterprise(Hubli) R.N. 234, 2Nd Floor 12/A Yusuf Building Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aapfs0181B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

mere change of opinion without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued within four years from the end of the assessment year and due process of law was followed in this regard? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

COURT OF DELHI case and there was prima facie material based on which Saif II Mauritius Company Ltd. v. reopening notice was issued within four years, sufficiency Assistant Commissioner of Income- or correctness of material would not be considered at stage tax of issue of notice under section

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

ground that when the original assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act and further when the assessment was reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the question of change of opinion does not arise and consequently, there is no error ... that the original assessment order in the present case was passed under section 143(1) of the Act and assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, once the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the relevant

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 573/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

been rejected as being time barred. As per the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act, rectification application is to be filed within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified is passed. In the present case, the assessee

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 572/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 571/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 570/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

days or more; or (b) he has been in India for a cumulative period of 365 days or more within four years preceding that year and further for a total period amounting in all to 60 days or more in that relevant year. 6.2 Here, the claim of the assessee

ACIT, CC-2(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. Shalimar Hatcheries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

would not make much change in the opinion formed by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority. The question is assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year. 14 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. There