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

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

11 of “Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992” has held that the interest on tax will not be a charge on the property under attachment to be discharged by the custodian, however, contrary to the said provision, section 201(2) of the Income Tax Act specifically provides that the TDS either not deducted

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 & 12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b). Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

reassessment has undergone a sea change and section 148 of the Act has been repealed and abrogated and replaced by new sections of 148 and 148A w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by the Finance Act 2021. For the sake of better understanding of the provisions of the Act and Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions ) Act, 2020 (TOLA

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

reassessment has undergone a sea change and section 148 of the Act has been repealed and abrogated and replaced by new sections of 148 and 148A w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by the Finance Act 2021. For the sake of better understanding of the provisions of the Act and Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions ) Act, 2020 (TOLA

HANUMAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

11. From sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section, it is important to note that AO has to be vested with jurisdiction over any area as prescribed in clause (a) and (b). In sub-section (3), an assessee is not entitled to call for the jurisdiction of AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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

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

1) were issued on 30.05.2016 fixing the case for hearing on 06.06.2016. It means that reassessment machinery was put in motion. The assessee has allegedly filed the objections vide letter dated 29.08.2016, whose copy is being filed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in a supplementary paper book, though without any certificate. The ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere taken

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 to 15 are in relation to merits of the case. As regards ground nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 the submissions are reproduced as under: “The appeal is filed against reassessment order framed by AO. The assessee is firstly agitating Ground No. 1 regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings as the same is barred by limitation. Reference

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 to 15 are in relation to merits of the case. As regards ground nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 the submissions are reproduced as under: “The appeal is filed against reassessment order framed by AO. The assessee is firstly agitating Ground No. 1 regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings as the same is barred by limitation. Reference

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable] a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") was beyond the time limit prescribed

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable] a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") was beyond the time limit prescribed

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable] a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") was beyond the time limit prescribed

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable] a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") was beyond the time limit prescribed

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of\nsection 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable]\na) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nnot accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless\nAssessment Centre (\"NFAC\") was beyond the time limit prescribed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of section 143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Ramesh Patodia, Advocate Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Ramesh Patodia, Advocate Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1), 39[(1A),] (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 11