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

142 has been issued to him, or (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 limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment

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)

142 has been issued to him, or (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

HANUMAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee and the assessee filed the copies of audited accounts, ITRs, bank statements, etc before the AO during the reassessment proceedings which were initiated by the ld. Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited; A.Y. 2008-09 AO u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice

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 or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

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 or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

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 or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES 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 or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

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

142 taxmann.com 146 (Kol-Trib.). He has submitted that in the light of the propositions laid down in the said case laws, since the interest component does not form part of the tax and the same being compensatory in nature, is an allowable deduction as business expenditure in computation of taxable income. He has further submitted that even otherwise

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

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

reassessment or recomputation made\nbefore the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice\nunder sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 10. The Ld. AR contends that the reference was made under sub- section (2A) of section 142

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based on\ninvalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated 06.09.2022\n4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration\non 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.17,25,39,330/- under normal\nprovision