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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011¬2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. The Assessment Years involved in the present batch of appeals are Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011¬2012. The bone of contention is that the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act is now claimed by the respondent assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and not under Section 80P(2

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

reassessment has been framed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also hold that shelter u/s 292BB of the Act cannot be taken by the revenue for jurisdictional issue. In the instant case, admittedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee after the filing of the return on 11.3.2005. Hence

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

reassessment has been framed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also hold that shelter u/s 292BB of the Act cannot be taken by the revenue for jurisdictional issue. In the instant case, admittedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee after the filing of the return on 11.3.2005. Hence

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

2) thereof. 11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is ne Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that Section 292BB of the cessary that Section 292BB of the Act be noticed in its entirety: Act be noticed in its entirety: "292BB Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances "292BB Notice deemed to be valid

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

2) thereof. 11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is ne Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that Section 292BB of the cessary that Section 292BB of the Act be noticed in its entirety: Act be noticed in its entirety: "292BB Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances "292BB Notice deemed to be valid

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) thereof. 11. Apropos the second question framed above, it is ne Apropos the second question framed above, it is necessary that Section 292BB of the cessary that Section 292BB of the Act be noticed in its entirety: Act be noticed in its entirety: "292BB Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances "292BB Notice deemed to be valid

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

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11(2) of the Act. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as above

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

11. As regards the remaining 4th issue raised by the Ld. Principal CIT in the notice issued under section 263 which was also subject matter of reassessment relating to disallowance on account of operational and incidental expenses claimed by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the operational and incidental expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed

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)

2) of section 143 has ex- pired, or 11 Suresh Kumar Poddar (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the appellant or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the appellant or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under

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

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 Aristocrat Residences LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

reassess the income which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment and which formed the subject-matter of a notice under section 148(2), it is nonetheless open to him to assess any other income which, during the course of the proceedings is brought to his notice as having escaped assessment. 11

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act:] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing

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

WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 15. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment cannot stand and that is why the learned judge after quashing the notice under section 148 of the said Act also directed that if any assessment order has been passed pursuant to the said notice, the same would also be set aside and quashed....”. 7.1 Further, in the case of Pravin Balubhai Zala v.ITO (2010) 129 TTJ 373 (ITAT