M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

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

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment\nyear.\n• It may be noted here that the words used in Sec 147, is \"if the AO has\nreason to believe\" and not merely \"If AO believes

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken, it would be a case of formation of no option and, hence, in such cases assessment order itself records that issue was raised and is decided in favour of assessee; reassessment proceedings in said cases will be hit by principle of ‘change of opinion’. In Raymond Woollen Mills

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1,65,65,143/- under the relevant assets and allow depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Cosequently

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1,65,65,143/- under the relevant assets and allow depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Cosequently

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

1) of section 263 and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal, the powers of the ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 shall extend only to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. In the present case, the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for Long-Term Capital

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limita- tion of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has ex- pired, or 11 Suresh Kumar Poddar (c) assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2109/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata………………………………………….……Appellant Vs. M/S National Engineering Industrial Ltd…..……..........……...…..…..Respondent 11Th Floor, Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacn9969L] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca & Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of Balance Additional Depreciation On The Assets Which Were Put To Use In Earlier Year. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add To Delete, Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing..” 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Time-Barred By 18 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of The Said Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein Reasons For The Delay In Filing This Appeal Have Been Mentioned. Considering The Above Reasons, We Condone The Delay.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation on the assets which were

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld. C.LT(A) erred in confirming the order U/s. 143(3)/115JB of the IT. Act, 1961 when it was time barred as it had been served on the appellant company on 4.1.2010 which is well beyond the stipulated

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VATICAN COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation was not available -Pressmen Advertising & Marketing Ltd. V. CIT [2005] 142 Taxman 17 (Kol.). Section 147 does not empower the Assessing Officer to review already concluded issues - CIT v. Ranji Kaur [2003] 81 TTJ (Chd) 269. Section 147 does not authorize the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment under garb of 'reason to believe' to review its own decision

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue