MAN MOHAN GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment.\n16. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com\n183 (SC) while adjudicating on section 292BB held that;\n• According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the\nproceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid, even if\nthere be infractions as detailed

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]

119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/1961 - INCOME INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES STRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010 INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31 I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from References have been received

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]

119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/1961 - INCOME INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES STRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010 INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31 I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from References have been received

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

119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation

M/S. DHANBAD MINERALS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment.\n16. Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com\n183 (SC) while adjudicating on section 292BB held that;\n• According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the\nproceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid, even if\nthere be infractions as detailed

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/1961 - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010 INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that References have been received by the Board

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 147 not adhered.\nThis legal position has been consistently upheld by multiple High\nCourts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\nd. Judicial Precedents\n(i) NDTV Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 424 ITR 607 (SC):\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the assessee has\ndisclosed all primary facts, it is not obligated to assist the AO in\ndrawing

SEIKH ABDUL SABIR GOLAHAT NIMTALA MASJID,BURDWAN vs. CIT(A), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 309/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Seikh Abdul Sabir, Golahat Nimtala Masjid,……………………………Appellant P.O. Sripally, Dist. Purba Bardhaman-713101, W.B. [Pan:Azaps9812M] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Burdwan, Near Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 04, 2024 O R D E R

119/-. The assessment thereafter was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and a reassessment

DE-CON PROJECTS P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

Bench: passing original assessment order under Section 143(3), the same was examined by him and therefore, it is nothing but change of opinion and as such not in accordance with law.

119 ITR 996 (SC) were Hon'ble Apex Court held that the reassessment based on mere change of opinion is not valid. Moreover, reassessment proceedings were based on statement of Mr. Sachet Saraf who had allegedly provided bogus loss to the various beneficiaries including assessee.The Learned Authorised Representative contended that this statement made by Mr. Sachet Saraf was subsequently retracted

RANISATI HOSIERY (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

reassess the case. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 17.08.2016 and served on the assessee. The case was fixed for hearing. Shri Raghwendra Kumar, Advocate & A/R appeared on 19.08.2016 and produced copy of ITR, audited accounts, details of directors, share trading, registered office, details of increase of share capital, Form-2 & Form-5, shareholders list, bank a/c details

M/S INDOVISION COMMODITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

reassessment is liable to be quashed. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in adding back Rs. 26,18,726/- received from M/s Abhiman Distributors to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 when no enquiry worth name was made from the party or any verification done from the assessment record

JYOTI SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Instructions to subordinate authorities - Instructions regarding income limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 |F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases

VINOD KUMAR GIRI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 47(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vinod Kumar Giri,…………………….…………..Appellant 158/2/1, Belilious Road, Kadamtala, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Adxpg2995E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………......Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 11, 2025 O R D E R

119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Instructions to subordinate authorities - Instructions regarding income limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/ITOs. INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 |F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases

ROHIT BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

sections 119, 120, 124, 127, 129 etc. Without prejudice to the above the defence of the department is confined to the technicalities of jurisdiction of assessment, as per grounds of appeal taken by assessee. 3. This issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Madaras High Court

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Abc India Limited Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 40/8, Ballygunj Circular Road Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026

119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/1961 - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT/1961 - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES - INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

reassessment proceeding. (ii)2na paragraph: It will contain details of information and material received/ collected/found by the AO subsequent to processing of original/ reopened assessment proceedings along with time period/ date of collection or receipt of information. In the cases where information is received from the Investigation Wing or any other law enforcement agency, details of letter, brief summary