BRINDA DAGA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(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;\nAccording 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 in said

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

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

119.” 12. Therefore case of the assessee is therefore squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above decisions and respectfully following the same , we are inclined to hold the assessment as invalid being based on the invalid issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The first additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” ABC India

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others 4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others 4. The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee in this case has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on The assessee

KAMLESH SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WARD-4(30, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

119 of\nthe Act which are binding on the authorities in the\nadministration of the Act. Under section\n119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein\ncannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the\npurpose of just, proper and efficient management of the\nwork of assessment and in public interest. It is a\nbeneficial power

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

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

119 (Bang.) (SB) - UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 30 SOT 95 (Mum.) - Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 406 (Mum.) - Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2010] 39 SOT 59 (Mum.) 11. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

119 ITR 996, wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

119 ITR 996, wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

119 ITR 996, wherein it was held that an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give AO power to assume jurisdiction to make reassessment. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has been reiterated by the Apex Court in A.L.A.Firm vs. CIT 183 ITR 285. 8. We note that

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

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

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

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

Section 147 of the Act comes 09 and hence the proviso to Section 147 of the Act comes into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re into play. A reading of the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment shows that ssment shows that there is no allegation made, that there is failure on the part

ACIT, CIR-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ MURARKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

reassessment purpose, it was regarded by the AO as the accumulated profit of M/s. Batlivala & Karani Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee was holding shares 41.84%, so according to AO, provision of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act applies in assessee’s case. 4. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the accumulated profit is in the negative

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.

b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate, since the Respondent had participated in the proceedings, the provisions of Section 292BB would be a complete answer. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Vijaywargia, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondent submitted that the notice under