DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14. The banking business, even though run by a Co-operative bank is sought to be excluded from the beneficial provisions of exemption or deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The purpose of bringing on the statute book sub-section (4) in Section 80P of the Act was to exclude the applicability of Section 80P of the Act altogether

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed

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)

reassessment proceedings after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after the return filed by the Assessee is actually scrutinised by the AO. 14

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed

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

14 August, 1995, has a\nbinding effect on the department, but not on the Court. This circular clarifies the\nrequirement of law in respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143\nof the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act,\nfor the determination of undisclosed income

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

reassessment proceedings altogether? 2. What is the effect in view of Section 292BB of the Act when a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is not issued at all?" The Supreme Court judgment in Hotel Blue Moon has first to be referred to since such judgment still holds the field. In course of a block assessment when

LATE RAM KISHAN MALL, L/H SHRI MAN MOHAN MALL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2004-05

reassessment proceedings altogether? 2. What is the effect in view of Section 292BB of the Act when a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is not issued at all?" The Supreme Court judgment in Hotel Blue Moon has first to be referred to since such judgment still holds the field. In course of a block assessment when

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act:] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

reassess income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). 14

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]

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, an assessment of such income for another assessment year shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed

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]

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, an assessment of such income for another assessment year shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

14, 2017 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Principal CIT – 2, Kolkata dated 28.03.2017 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the grounds raised by the assessee therein read as under: “1. For that the order passed under section 263 of the Income

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

2 of Section 147 of the LT. Act and such escapement had occurred due to the assessee's failure to disclose true, proper and complete facts in the return of income, filed for the subject assessment year. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued. 14. Thus, on the perusal of such reasons, it is quite clear that the provisions

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)

2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been ansalted in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything con- tained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassess- ment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

14 that previous jurisdiction of the appellant vested with ITO, Ward - 3(1), is known best to the AO himself, especially in view of the fact that no reply was given by ITO, Ward - 3(1) when the appellant at the very outset challenged the issue of notice u/s 143(2) by the AO, ITO, Ward - 3(1), vide letter

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

14 that previous jurisdiction of the appellant vested with ITO, Ward - 3(1), is known best to the AO himself, especially in view of the fact that no reply was given by ITO, Ward - 3(1) when the appellant at the very outset challenged the issue of notice u/s 143(2) by the AO, ITO, Ward - 3(1), vide letter

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

14. He further referred to written submission as reproduced above and has submitted that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Harshad Shantilal Mehta” (supra) which has been further followed by various High Courts including the Bombay High Court in the cases of “CIT vs. Oryx Finance & Investment (P) Ltd.” reported