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.

64 results for “reassessment”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi213Mumbai188Chennai105Bangalore104Jaipur73Kolkata64Chandigarh45Ahmedabad36Lucknow24Pune22Indore22Hyderabad19Nagpur18Agra13Raipur12Cochin12Visakhapatnam10Jodhpur8Patna7Dehradun7Allahabad5Surat5Amritsar5Karnataka4Telangana4Cuttack3Panaji3Jabalpur2SC2Rajkot2Orissa1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 154118Section 143(3)90Section 14771Section 26361Addition to Income36Rectification u/s 15433Section 9032Section 143(1)29Section 14825Section 143(2)

M/S. SHREE HANUMAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/KOL/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

reassessment. The present case does not fall in that category. " ITA No.341/Kol/2010-B-JM Industries Limited 13 M/s.Shree Hanuman Sugar & 7.8. Keeping in view of the above decisions, we are of the view that the mistake, if any, is occurring in the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.1995 and though AO has passed subsequent rectification orders

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

24
Reassessment20
Deduction16

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1195/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1194/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1196/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: G.Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194Section 194CSection 40

154 does not arise, since there is no mistake in the order which require rectification. The third argument of the appellant's authorized representative was that the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 18/12/2007 got merged with the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 24/12/2010 by the theory of doctrine of merger and the time limit for rectification

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act were not justified and without jurisdiction as there was no mistake or error apparent from the record. W have examined the second ground. The Assessing Officer could not have resorted to section 154 proceedings to disallow expenditure under section 14A of the Act. This was not possible in section 154 proceedings

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

reassessment did not suffer from any mistake warranting any rectification. It was also pleaded without prejudice to the aforesaid argument that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision

SUNDEEP MUKHERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1271/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice -] I.T.A. No. 1271/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sundeep Mukherjee.............................……………………………………………………………....Appellant Commerce House, 8Th Floor, Room 3A, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkat -700 013. [Pan : Afcpm 5140 E] Ito Ward 22(3) Kolkata...................………………………………………………….............Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 17.05.2018 Whereby He Upheld The Rectification Order Passed By The Ao U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.07.2005 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 1,63,230/-. In The Assessment Completed Originally U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 26.12.2007, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 10,84,370/- After Making Addition Inter Alia On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain Amounting To Rs. 6,97,716/- & Tax @ 10% Was Calculated On Such Short Term Capital Gain As Per Section 111A Of The Act. Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3), An Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Disposed Of The Same

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 251

rectification of any mistake, which passing an order u/s 251 and such order is bad in law and needs to be corrected by passing fresh order u/s 154/251/143(3). v. That it needs to be seen that during passing of an order u/s 251 giving effect to the Appellant Order, there is no scope for fresh enquiry or reassessment

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section 154 to rectify the intimation and to make additions and disallowances to the income indicated therein has been agitated by taxpayers

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section 154 to rectify the intimation and to make additions and disallowances to the income indicated therein has been agitated by taxpayers

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section 154 to rectify the intimation and to make additions and disallowances to the income indicated therein has been agitated by taxpayers

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CONSOLIDATED FIBRES & CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1082/KOL/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri D.Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)

reassessment proceedings, the Learned AO issued notice u/s 154 of the Act dated 20.12.2001 proposing to rectify the non-inclusion of interest income of Rs. 38,43,000/-. The assessee duly responded to the said proceeding by giving a reply on 31.12.2001 and objecting to the rectification

RAMAKRISHNA RAO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALIPURDUAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

154 of the Act dated 22.02.2023. 8. The right to file an appeal is a statutory right and the order u/s. 143(1) is appealable to the first appellate authority i.e. the Ld. CIT(A). therefore, merely because the rectification application was rejected and the assessee requested for credit of foreign tax paid, the claim cannot be said to have

SRI SRI ADHAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 249/KOL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 249/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Adhar Gupta.................................…………………………................................................Appellant H-40, New Market, Kolkata – 700 087. [Pan: Aeapg 8966 P] Ito, Ward – 33(3) Kolkata...................………………………………………………….........Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 03, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 03, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Ex-Parte Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

reassessment made u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 28.03.2013, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 63,34,080/- after making addition of Rs. 61,40,262/- on account of long term capital gain and Rs. 8,815/- on account of short term capital gain. 2 I.T.A. No. 249/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

DAULAL KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1065/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Daulal Kothari -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aiypk 2894 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

reassessment by adding the sum of Rs. 9,94,152/- towards long term capital gain. The assessee preferred an appeal against this year before the ld. CIT(A) who disposed off the same in appeal no. 1144/CIT(A)-13/Kol/Circle-44/2010-11/2014-15 dated 30.12.2015 by observing as under: “6. Decision: 6.1. I have gone through the facts submitted by the assessee

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 68

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 10.04.2019 (although the same is neither served upon the assessee nor is available on the IT portal). If that be so, then the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 27.12.2017 stood merged with the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 10.04.2019. In that view of the matter the revisionary

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

rectification has the effect of allowing the Appeal also for all the four assessment years which was dismissed previously by the Order dated 26-8-2009 on an apparently erroneous finding of fact.” 16. This order of CIT(A) was passed on 26.05.2010. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) dated 26.05.2010 passed u/s 154 of the Act the revenue

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

rectification has the effect of allowing the Appeal also for all the four assessment years which was dismissed previously by the Order dated 26-8-2009 on an apparently erroneous finding of fact.” 16. This order of CIT(A) was passed on 26.05.2010. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) dated 26.05.2010 passed u/s 154 of the Act the revenue

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision