BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

315 results for “reassessment”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,616Delhi605Kolkata315Ahmedabad311Jaipur213Chennai196Bangalore177Pune161Hyderabad150Chandigarh147Raipur124Surat85Rajkot76Visakhapatnam71Indore71Amritsar65Guwahati53Patna50Cuttack44Nagpur43Lucknow38Cochin29Allahabad16Dehradun14SC13Agra11Jodhpur10Karnataka9Ranchi6Orissa4Jabalpur4Telangana4Kerala3Varanasi3Panaji2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 147137Section 148110Section 143(3)80Addition to Income76Section 26366Section 6847Section 25043Section 143(2)32Reopening of Assessment32

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed

ITA 815/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas,CIT,DR &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

reassessment proceedings. Thereafter, as per specific request of the Respondent, reasons for re- opening of assessment were provided to the Respondent vide letter dated 19-10-2011. In the said letter the AO has contended that the Respondent is not entitled to carry forward the depreciation loss

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 315 · Page 1 of 16

...
Section 271(1)(c)31
Reassessment27
Limitation/Time-bar21

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2580/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

carry forward loss set off of brought forward losses an amounting to Rs.2,05,51,01,000/- which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that on the facts of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- under head "provision for fraud" which

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2581/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

carry forward loss set off of brought forward losses an amounting to Rs.2,05,51,01,000/- which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that on the facts of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- under head "provision for fraud" which

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN UDYOG LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed as rendered infructuous

ITA 1776/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1776/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate & Shri Nirav Sheth, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 72ASection 79

carry forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation to the extent claimed by the assessee in A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proposed to disallow the same. However, in reassessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

carried forward to the subsequent year without any time limit. 24. The facts and issue are same as in ITA No.609/Kol/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08 following our decision on this issue as embodied in para-7 of this order, hence, this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. AO is directed accordingly. 25. Next issue raised by Revenue in this

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1613/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(1)Section 72

carried forward. But, as the income of the 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income, the question of setting off the loss of the current year's or the brought forward business loss (and unabsorbed depreciation) against the s. 10A profits does not arise. In view of the fact

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/KOL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

loss has not claimed as a carry forward. There is no impact on taxation. It is just an academic exercise undertaken by the ld. Assessing Officer. Had the ld. Assessing Officer verified subsequent return, then, he would have dropped the proceedings. On going through all these aspects, we are of the view that reopening is not sustainable. We quash

BENGAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 699/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 263

reassessed at Rs. 81,17,907 after set- off of long term capital loss of Rs.40,31,675. This set-off of LTCL arises from transfer of share/M.F., the income of which qualify for exemption u/s. 10(38). Your objection is that the LTCG u/s. 10(38) being exempt, the corresponding L TCL cannot be allowed to be carried forward

JESSOP & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

ITA 702/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

loss carried forward in the balance sheet was Rs. 790. 15 lacs. g) Consequently the net-worth had become positive due to unusual and exceptional write backs during the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 and not due to the profit earned by the Sick Industrial company ie. Jessop & Co. Ltd. h) As such our company is entitled to deduction under

SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 72Section 73

carried forward for ITA Nos.657&750/Kol/2012-Shree Ram Electrocast Pvt.Ltd.-A.Y.2007-08 being set off only against the income which is of the nature of speculation. The findings of CIT(A) with regard to loss in question being genuine were as follows :- “However, as far as the view of the A.O. regarding ingenuineness of said loss is concerned

DCIT,CC-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAM ELECTROCAST PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 72Section 73

carried forward for ITA Nos.657&750/Kol/2012-Shree Ram Electrocast Pvt.Ltd.-A.Y.2007-08 being set off only against the income which is of the nature of speculation. The findings of CIT(A) with regard to loss in question being genuine were as follows :- “However, as far as the view of the A.O. regarding ingenuineness of said loss is concerned

M/S INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 304/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

carried forward and set off against the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15. He accordingly found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16 under section 143(3) allowing the set off of business loss for A.Y. 2009-10 amounting to Rs.3,99,13,429/- was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT LTD, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1161/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance to be carried forward. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated December 24, 2009. In the said order, the carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation allowance as claimed by the assessee in the return of income was not disturbed. Subsequently the A.O. initiated reassessment

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

forward loss of Rs. 1,85,000/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income was also raised. The petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was also filed along with the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner had engaged a tax consultant to take care of the income tax proceedings

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL FISHERIES CORPORATION LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 476/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)

forward loss for the AY 2004-05, although the same duly considered by the AO in the assessment order? (2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata has erred in directing the AO to allow full depreciation on the assets which were remain in work-in-progress? (3) Whether

M/S. GIRISH ROLLED PRODUCTS & ALLOYS LTD., ,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2319/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2319/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Girish Rolled Products & Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Kolkata – 69. Alloys Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee City Centre, 4Th Floor, 63/2, The Mall, Square, Kolkata – 69. Kanpur- 208001 (U.P) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 0137 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

loss for A.Y.1998-99 of Rs.23,17,557/- has been set off in two parts (A.Y.2005-06 Rs.12,10,978/- and A.Y.2006-07 Rs.3,38,521/-. The balance of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.7,68,058/-, has been carried forwards which is not allowed as it has to be set off within eight Assessment Years succeeding the Assessment Year 1998-99. So, there

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 19. Now, for the purpose of carrying out the reassessment proceedings beyond four years or in cases where regular scrutiny proceedings have been carried

M/S. JABIBUR RAHAMAN ,MURSHIDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 14, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1171/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 147Section 263

carry forward and set off of loss as the return of income filed after due date.” Having gone through the findings of the assessing officer, as noted above, the ld. Counsel submitted before us that during the reassessment