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

reassessment within nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee, the impugned proceedings were already barred by limitation as on 31.12.2016 since the date issue & dispatch of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was 31.03.2016, the relevant assessment order u/s. 147 could have been passed only

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’).

reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not verifying the subscriptions made by the share applicants. He accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the issue. Thereafter, in the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. PERFECT WAHERS & FASTENERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

163 Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under Section

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]

section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made

SHRI DIPENDRA NATH CHUNDER,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-54(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the impugned notices dated 23rd

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made

RADIX TIE-UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Kolkata 184/A, Regent Colony, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr1237M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2019 Passed In Case No.791/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 27.01.20 Explaining Five Days’ Delay To Be Attributable To Various Procedural Aspects & Compilation Of Necessary Records & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, I Condone The Impugned Delay Of Five Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann. Com 76 (Rajasthan) and the judgment of ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Hotel Babylon Continental Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (Central) [2024] taxmann.com 306 (Raipur Trib.), which were not overruled by the ld. PCIT in the order under section 263 of the Act. A perusal of the order of ld. PCIT shows that he noted the failure

SMT. NITA SETHIA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Nita Sethia V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 5, Janki Shah Road, 1St 3(3), 110, Shanti Pally, Floor, Hastings, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700022 Poorva, E.M. Bye Pass, [Pan No.Ajwps 8335 H] Nr. Ruby Hospital, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.930/Acit,Cc-3(3)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 153A R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Her Instant Appeal. Her Former Legal Grievance Challenges Validity Of Sec. 153A Proceedings In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search. This Follows Her Latter Substantive Ground On Merits That The Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating Long

163/- be treated as the one filed in furtherance to sec 153A proceeding. She further objected to the impugned proceeding for lack of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search conducted in her case. The Assessing Officer rejected the same quoting hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia

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

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

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

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

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

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

PARAS PALAZA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), KOLKATA, GOVT PLACE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Paras Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mel Layout, Bagalagunte, Ward 10(4), Kolkata Vs. Bangalore, Karnataka-560088 3, Govt Place, Kolkata-700001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecp8301N Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2025

reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 26.03.2019 under section 148, even prior to receipt of the proforma/ form containing the mandatory approval of the sanctioning Paras Plaza Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)-4, Kolkata, as required to be obtained under Section 151 of the Act.” 03. The facts

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) wherein it has been held as under: Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added

BAGARIA LEASING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

163 taxmann.com 449 (Calcutta) wherein it has been held as under: Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. Nos.: 441 & 442/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2002-03

section 17 to the assessee and the notice issued upon 'A' which was not in existence at that time was insufficient to initiate proceedings against the assessee who had taken over the liability of 'A' earlier to the issue of such notice and such fact was also made known to the revenue. Thus, the reassessment proceedings were

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

reassessment proceedings was not acceptable by the A.O. and he proceeded to make a disallowance of Rs. 1,10,08,966/- being excess claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 21.12.2009. 4. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3)/147, an appeal

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

reassessment proceedings was not acceptable by the A.O. and he proceeded to make a disallowance of Rs. 1,10,08,966/- being excess claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 21.12.2009. 4. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3)/147, an appeal

GOODVIEW MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.986/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant 255, Canal Street, Shree Bhumi, Brijdham Housing Complex, Kolkata-700048. (Pan: Aadcg0582H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-6(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ar Appeared For Appellant Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 16.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2008-09 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 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 144/263 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 5. That on the facts and in law, the reopening u/s 147 of the Act having being done for escapement of income in relation to consultancy fees, the scope of assessment could not have been expanded u/s 263 of the Act unless provided

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years on the date of initiation of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The impugned assessment year is a year which falls within the period of six assessment years considering the date of search as 22.09.2011. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) were pending