DAULAL KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1065/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Daulal Kothari -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aiypk 2894 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Daulal Kothari A.Yr.2010-11 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income in the assessment year 2010-11 on 30.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 16,54,428/-. The assessment was originally completed

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment order dated 24/12/2010 not from the date of original assessment. The appellant contended that order passed under section 143(3) dated 18.12.2007 steps into the shoes of the order under section under section 5 Gopinath Ghorai A.Yr.2005-06 143(3) read with section 147 dated 24.12.2007 and the time limit starts for making rectification under section 154

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

154 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee sold his residential flats in Delhi and Kolkata and made reinvestment in another property and also invested in section 54EC Bonds and claimed exemption u/s 54 and 54EC of the Act. The return of income

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]

reassessment was lacking, still, the assessment would be valid and ex consequenti, the addition would be sustainable. This, in my considered opinion, is a totally illogical and unsound proposition. I, therefore, order to delete the addition of Rs. 2.36 lakh and odd made by the ld. CIT (A).” 17. In both these decisions the concurrent view expressed was that unless

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

C.M. RAJGARHIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 154 of the Income Tax Act to make an addition by way of revisiting the entire assessment order and thereby reassess

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

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned

M/S. SHREE HANUMAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 115JA. Therefore, the AO cannot modify such order u/s. 154 of the Act. 13. In reply, the Ld. DR submits the limitation is saved to rectify the order and the revenue has an opportunity to rectify the order u/s. 154 of the Act. The AO did not take into consideration the computation u/s. 115JA from the first instance onwards

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum, for the period beginning from the date following the date of expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section

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]

154, 155 and 158BE and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then

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]

154, 155 and 158BE and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then

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’).

154. The bench minutely analysed law in this regard and applying the principle of 'coram non judice' and following aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when action for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the validity of the reassessment

SALES EMPORIUM (SOUTH),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to directions contained hereinabove

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2262/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 Sales Emporium (South) -Vs- Dcit, Circle-53/Now 26, Kolkata [Pan: Aawfs 6903 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment of the firm, or (b) on any reduction or enhancement made in the income of the firm under this section, section 154

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 154 of the Act can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order is apparent from record and that rectification is not permissible if the question is debatable. According to the Supreme Court, the point which was not examined on fact or on law cannot be dealt with

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 154 of the Act can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order is apparent from record and that rectification is not permissible if the question is debatable. According to the Supreme Court, the point which was not examined on fact or on law cannot be dealt with

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 154 of the Act can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order is apparent from record and that rectification is not permissible if the question is debatable. According to the Supreme Court, the point which was not examined on fact or on law cannot be dealt with

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

154. The said power can be exercised when mistake is apparent. Even mistake cannot be rectified where it may be a mere possible view or where the issues are debatable. Even the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction under section 254(2). Thus, when the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and the view taken