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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

139(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the delay in filing Form In the instant case, the delay in filing Form-10 though was condoned by the 10 though was condoned by the Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return of income stands late. Hence the assessee is not Ld. CIT, the delay in filing return 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)

9. While considering the issue involved, one has to consider the object and purpose of insertion of Section 153A in the Act, 1961 and when there shall be a block assessment under section 153A of the Act, 1961. 9.1 That prior to insertion of Section 153A in the statute, the relevant provision for block assessment was under section 158BA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

139, section 147, section 148, section\n149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, —\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned,\nbelongs to; or\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or\nany information contained therein, relates to,\na person other than

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

9. A 'clearance' or notice or intimation under section 143(1) of the Act clearly falls beyond the parameters of this definition. In Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 242 (Punj. & Har.) it was opined that it is not necessary that assessment should have been finalised under section 143(3) before it can be 'reopened' under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

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

139(1). It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had tried to claim benefit of carry forward of loss on the basis of the order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. 14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9) provides that Form No. 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the rule nowhere provides that if the said Form No. 67 is not filed within the required time frame, the relief as sought by the assessee

ACIT, C.C. XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KANCHAN OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as being withdrawn

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 725/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09 Acit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 1390, 1391 & 1553/Kol/2010 A.Ys 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08 Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos. 106, 107 & 140/Kol/2010 [ A/O Ita Nos.1390, 1391& 1553/Kol/2010 Ays. ’03-04, ’04-05& ’07-08] For The Appellant/Department: None Appeared For The Respondent/Assessee : Shria.K Tibrewal, Fca

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: ITA Nos.725/K/11

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

9) Loan Repaid in F.Y. 2011-12-No Addition Justified u/s 68\nIt is respectfully submitted that no addition under section 68 of the\nIncome Tax Act is warranted in the present case, as all loan\ntransactions were duly repaid during the Financial Year 2011-12.\nThis position is firmly supported by judicial precedents:\n(a) Hon'ble Calcutta High

MACKINTOSH BURN LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1736/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

139 .” In the light of the above provisions of the Act, the ld Counsel submitted before us that before initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act a notice under section 148 must be served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish any particulars or details as may be prescribed in the notice including furnishing of return

DEBANJAN CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 12. We find from Article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA that where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provision of the convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall

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

139(1) of the Act for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 had already expired and returns filed prior to the date of search and for the assessment years 2006-07 also the return was not filed on the due date.” We have heard Mr.Sinha extensively and gone through the impugned judgement and order of the Learned Tribunal

TYCOONS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.-CC-XX,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & M. Balaganesh, Am]

9 to 15 belonged to M/s. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. of 11, British Indian Street, Kolkata – 700 069. Accordingly, the A.O. recorded his satisfaction in terms of section 153C of the Act and issued notices for assessment of six years. Pursuant to such notices, the A.O. passed the order under section 153C / 143(3) dated 28.12.2011 wherein he assessed

TYCOONS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.-CC-XX,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & M. Balaganesh, Am]

9 to 15 belonged to M/s. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. of 11, British Indian Street, Kolkata – 700 069. Accordingly, the A.O. recorded his satisfaction in terms of section 153C of the Act and issued notices for assessment of six years. Pursuant to such notices, the A.O. passed the order under section 153C / 143(3) dated 28.12.2011 wherein he assessed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

139.” The section 149 relates to time limit for notice sys as under:- 149(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a)……. (b) if four years, but not more then six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts

DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAAN CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1193/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit,Cc-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maan Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccm 0388 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years:" 7 M/s Maan Capital

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

reassessment proceedings was initiated having not been supplied to the appellant, the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of such assessment proceedings on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal even though the said decision was not applicable in the instant case

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

reassessment proceedings was initiated having not been supplied to the appellant, the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of such assessment proceedings on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal even though the said decision was not applicable in the instant case

M.A. FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

139 of the Act on 20.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.9,647/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, based on information received through ITBA software under the head High Risk Transaction Case notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued and finally notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued