DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment proceedings got commenced pursuant to issuance of notice u/s 148 on 30.3.2010 as stated supra. Admittedly, the objects and activities of the trust had remained the same in preceding assessment years also i.e Asst Years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Though this first proviso to section 12A

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

section 12A(2) of the Act which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :— …………………… 6.4 Admittedly, the reassessment proceedings

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

section 12A(2) of the Act which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :— …………………… 6.4 Admittedly, the reassessment proceedings

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceedings got commenced pursuant to issuance of notice u/s 148 on 30.3.2010 as stated supra. Admittedly, the objects and activities of the trust had remained the same in preceding assessment years also i.e Asst Years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Though this first proviso to ITA Nos. 1680-1685/Kol/12--C-AM 6 Sree Sree Ramkrsihna Samity section 12A

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In the present case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as 31-3-1970 was the last day of that period. Service under the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

12A of the Act and consequently there is no question for claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. Therefore the observation of the AO for reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act is based on his surmise, conjecture. Accordingly, the assessment is liable to be quashed

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming to such a decision we rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shantai Exim

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself is bad in law and for coming 10 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. to such a decision we rely on the decision

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

12A of the Act on 09/12/2016. Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing of Form No. 10 Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing of Form No. 10 Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing of Form No. 10 before the ld. CIT(E), Kolkata

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT (HALDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, 2 C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Chowringhee Square, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci9468D Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 2.1. Thus, the ld. AR submitted that the delay

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) ..

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) .. Appellant by : Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, AR Revenue by : Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 16/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 10/10/2018 आदेश

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

reassessment u/s147. Similarly, it has also been held in various judicial pronouncements that the reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings u/s147, have to speak for themselves. The reasons must provide a live link to the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons cannot keep the assessee guessing fur the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s147. These