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

12A(2) talks about pendency of assessment proceedings, it is relevant to get into the definition of the term 'assessment' in section 2(8) of the Act, wherein it is defined as "assessment includes reassessment

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]

12A(2) talks about pendency of assessment proceedings, it is relevant to get into the definition of the term ‘assessment’ in section 2(8) of the Act, wherein it is defined as “assessment includes reassessment

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

12A(2) talks about pendency of assessment proceedings, it is relevant to get into the definition of the term ‘assessment’ in section 2(8) of the Act, wherein it is defined as “assessment includes reassessment

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

reassessment resorted to in the instant case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) which

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

12A Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571301, Mysore District, Karnataka, Chowringhee Square, India. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAECA 2930 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Smt. Rituparna Sinha, AR Respondent by :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 05/04/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/05/2018 आदेश

TARAKESWAR VIVEKANANDA PALLY SEVA KENDRA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-24(3), HOOGHLY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

12A, as the Commissioner thought it fit to refuse to condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right

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

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

2. The AO also observed that the assessee has claimed personal expenses against the income of other sources which are not allowable under section 57 of the Act. However it was submitted that the trust is not registered under section 12A of the Act and consequently there is no question for claiming the exemption under section

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced as under: “I, Ajay Kumar Kejriwal S/o, Krishna Kejriwal, Director of M/s Oplus Steel and Power Private Limited (Formerly Known as Swati Concast and Power Private Limited) residing at Rosedale Garden, Tower-2, Flat-12A, Near Uniworld City, New Town, North 24 Paragans -700156 West Bengal, having PAN: AHOPK8976A, do hereby

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

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

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

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

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