PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMICUS HEALTHCARE SERVICES & SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was precluded from raising such an objection in the subsequent stages of the proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court held that in the instant case, no notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee after the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order from

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order from

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order from

M/S ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

section 197 of the Act, the certificate has to be issued by the AO (TDS) to the deductees i.e. in this case the seven (7) parties and not to the deductor (assessee in this case). Therefore, the reply given by the AO (TDS) that the assessee was not issued any lower deduction certificate as a deductor in respect

M/S. ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

section 197 of the Act, the certificate has to be issued by the AO (TDS) to the deductees i.e. in this case the seven (7) parties and not to the deductor (assessee in this case). Therefore, the reply given by the AO (TDS) that the assessee was not issued any lower deduction certificate as a deductor in respect

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

197 (All) it was held that a plain reading of Section\n148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be\nincumbent to send a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. It was observed:\n\n\"the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the\nlegislature in their

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

197/- in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002 substituting the old Section 32(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of amended provision of law, unabsorbed depreciation from assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 was eligible

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

197(9) of the Companies Act, 2013 after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act has been assumed invalidly by Ld. Pr. CIT as the necessary pre-conditions for exercising his jurisdiction was not satisfied. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment framed

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

197,55,10,000/- with regard to the commission and preliminary warranty guarantee. Transfer Pricing Study was silent about the method for benchmarking the gross prices receivable by the appellant from AE for export of PCBs. But the DRP identified the aforesaid export as a separate transaction ('Sale') and confirmed the application of the TNMM at the entity level. However

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 on the issue which has been referred to by the ld. CIT in the impugned order and since the ld. Assessing Officer has taken a permissible view in law, therefore, ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The assesese placed reliance on plethora of judgments and the same are referred below:- S.No. Title

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

197-98.” 19. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2048/Kol/2005. First issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the entire order dated 11.03.2005 u/s 154/254/251/143(1)(a) of the Act which have been issued beyond the time-limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act, namely within

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

197-98.” 19. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2048/Kol/2005. First issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the entire order dated 11.03.2005 u/s 154/254/251/143(1)(a) of the Act which have been issued beyond the time-limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act, namely within

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

197-98.” 19. First we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2048/Kol/2005. First issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the entire order dated 11.03.2005 u/s 154/254/251/143(1)(a) of the Act which have been issued beyond the time-limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act, namely within

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARSH VARDHAN NEOTIA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court]

197/- in the case of Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia and Smt. Madhu Neotia respectively. 3. Against the orders passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, both the assessees preferred their appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the assessees inter alia

A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. MADHU NEOTIA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court]

197/- in the case of Shri Harsh Vardhan Neotia and Smt. Madhu Neotia respectively. 3. Against the orders passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, both the assessees preferred their appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the assessees inter alia

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

197 (SC)who had held in para 14 as under: 14. Now, in the case before us, the Income Tax officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion of material already considered

RISING RETAILS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act during the reassessment proceedings.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Ld. AO found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.24,01,69,671/- towards contract expense which include an amount of Rs.24,00,84,000/- paid to M/s. Sarda Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. issued letter