D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

b). Therefore, the ld. DR submitted that “the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)'s order in disposing the matter of applicability of time limit has not considered Explanation 2 to be read with section 149(1 )(c). The decision of CIT(A) is based on interpretation of judicial pronouncement that proceedings available to the AO. for action in the Financial

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]

13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry

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]

13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry

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]

reassessment. The aforesaid interpretation canvassed in the CBDT Instruction is, in fact, is again in direct conflict with the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts, which have duly been affirmed by the Apex Court in Ashis Agarwal (supra). In view of the aforesaid declaration that the impugned notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021, by the CBDT, relating

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]

reassessment. The aforesaid interpretation canvassed in the CBDT Instruction is, in fact, is again in direct conflict with the judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts, which have duly been affirmed by the Apex Court in Ashis Agarwal (supra). In view of the aforesaid declaration that the impugned notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021, by the CBDT, relating

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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

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)

b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limita- tion of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has ex- pired, or 11 Suresh Kumar Poddar (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made,before the date

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13 adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” A. We shall first take up ITA No. 179/KOL/2025 for AY 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacture of M.S. Pipes and Galvanized Pipes ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13 adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” A. We shall first take up ITA No. 179/KOL/2025 for AY 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacture of M.S. Pipes and Galvanized Pipes ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. The CIT(A) rightly held that it is not relevant whether any return of income was filed by the assessee prior

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

13. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “HarshadShantilal Mehta vs. Custodian” [1998] 99 Taxman 216 (SC) to submit that one of the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was “whether taxes include penalty or interest?” The ld. counsel has referred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) the claim has to be made by filing Form No. 10, have to be satisfied for claiming exemption. He argued t argued that the first condition was not satisfied and hence the hat the first condition was not satisfied and hence the ld. CIT(E) was forced to revise the order u/s 263 of the Act. On the legal

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. SRI BIR SINGH ATWAL, L/R OF LATE NARINDER SINGH ATWAL, , KOLKATA

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

B). h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissio passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissio passed by the Commissioner of Appeals

GUINESS FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3Rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aabck1388B] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 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’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee 2. Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Reason That The Assessee Is The Beneficiary Of Credit Of Rs.1,28,38,232/- From Penny Stock Company M/S Steel Exchange Ltd. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 14.07.2022. The Assessing Officer Passed An Ex Parte Order U/S 147 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.05.2023 Adding Rs.1,28,38,391/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [PAN: AABCK1388B] vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant

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) ..

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

B and section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 11. As per the provisions of Section 153A

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions