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

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

166 (SC). In this 5 Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying

GLASSEYE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

section 147 with effect from 1-4-1989, clearly stipulated that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income which he had reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which came to his notice during the proceedings. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently

MARK STEELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment prevented the AO from verifying capacity/genuineness amidst adverse Investigation Wing material, thereby failing section 68's burden. The remand clarification substituting Comfort Merchandise for the earlier misnamed "Booster Trading" preserves the identity of the second impugned credit on the same date and amount, and does not prejudice the Appellant, who had full opportunity in appeal to rebut capacity/genuineness

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

166 (SC). In\nthis case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that \"the provisions of\nthe Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under\nSection 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the\nmethodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section

SANJAY KUMAR SURANA,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon, the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd is per incuriam and, as such, not good law. 6. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that it is evident from facts of the case that during

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

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

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

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer has called for complete details of the share capital and share premium of Rs.14,69,50,000/- to which the assessee has filed all relevant details, which were further utilized by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. He moved a step further for digging

ANSHUL SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.935/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anshul Singh Vs Ito, Wd 49(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Ds-4, Uttarapan Complex, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Ultadanga, Maniktala Civic Centre, Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. :Csrps9550G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Reasons Recorded For Reopening Which Is Mentioned In Para 2 Of The Assessment Order, Reads As Follows :- “2. As Per The Information Available That- Credible Information Was Received From The Office Of Ddit(Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.7,46,000/- During Demonetization On Ohd Notes. From The Details Available It Was Found That The Assessee Has Deposited The Said Cash During Demonetization In The Bank Account Maintained By Him With Corporation Bank, Baguiati Branch. The Same Details Is Also Available In Its Details Of The 2 Assessee. However, The Source Of Such Huge Cash In Ohd Notes Is Not Ascertained As Per Financials Of The Assessee.”

166 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi), as no further investigation has been done by the Assessing Officer in respect of the information received from the DDIT(INV) UNIT-2(1), Kolkata being reopening held to be quashed. 5. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the availability of the information is enough for the purpose of reopening. It was the submission that

M/S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

reassessment pursuant to the first revisional order dated 10.06.2016 which action of Ld. Pr. CIT, according to assessee is without the requisite conditional precedent as laid down u/s. 263 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return on 28-09- 2012 at total income of Rs. 18,166/-. The return

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

JIWANSAGAR NIKETAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for a

reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 29.03.2017 u/s. 148 even prior to the receipt of the proforma form on 30.03.2017 containing the mandatory approval of the sanctioning authority i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income tax Central 2 Kolkata as required to be obtained u/s. 151 of the act." 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for a

reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 29.03.2017 u/s. 148 even prior to the receipt of the proforma form on 30.03.2017 containing the mandatory approval of the sanctioning authority i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income tax Central 2 Kolkata as required to be obtained u/s. 151 of the act." 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

reassessment action would not sustain. 23. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2014-15 dated 31 March 2021. 5.2 In Uttam Value Steels Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax [2024] 166