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

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

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]

iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed

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]

iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed

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)

14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678/[2010] 192 Taxman 197 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iii) On 24.09.2014 statutory notices for scrutiny were issued by ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia. 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed 6. We note that the CBDT Instruction is dated 31.01.2011 and the assessee has filed

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

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

iii) of Income Tax Rules 1962. Accordingly the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page 4 7,92,538/- which was reduced by the learned CIT(A) by directing the AO to work out the disallowance after considering only those investments which have yielded the dividend

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]

iii) The Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section; and (iv) Though the notice under section 148(2) does not include

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]

14. We note that section 153 of the Act contains the statutory time limits prescribed by the Parliament for the completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation. It is noted that the provisions of Section 153 of the Act was amended by the Finance Act 2016. The earlier time limits for completion of assessment, reassessment or computation were substituted

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]

14. We note that section 153 of the Act contains the statutory time limits prescribed by the Parliament for the completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation. It is noted that the provisions of Section 153 of the Act was amended by the Finance Act 2016. The earlier time limits for completion of assessment, reassessment or computation were substituted

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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated: iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

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

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

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

14 A simplictor. With these observations, we confirm the conclusions of the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” 20. The ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that the disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) &(iii) should be deleted as indicated in the decisions referred to above and the Assessee’s computation of disallowance accepted. Without prejudice to the above

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)

14. Thus, on the perusal of such reasons, it is quite clear that the pro- visions of Section 153A providing for "Assessment in case of search or requisition" and the provisions of Section 153C, which provide for "As- sessment of income of any other person", which ordain that recourse be taken to the provisions of Section 153A stand attracted

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed. 7.4. In the case of CIT vs Atul Jain CIT vs Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: "Held dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed. 7.4. In the case of CIT vs Atul Jain CIT vs Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: "Held dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken

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

iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. At the outset, it was observed that Ld AR of assessee has challenged the validity of the proceedings of assessment on the ground that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has not been issued by the Competent Authority. 5. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case