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

220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of taxes was not allowable as deduction in computation of the total income. 10. In our view whenever interest is charged under the Act, whether for delayed payment of tax or filing under estimate of tax or for non- submission of the estimate or return or for default in filing return within

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income at ₹162,97,59,233/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income at ₹162,97,59,233/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income at ₹162,97,59,233/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income at ₹162,97,59,233/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

220 Visakhapatnam land. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of AG of denying cost of acquisition of Rs 89,04,600/-as on 1.4.2001 and also denying the cost of improvement of Rs 68,48,232/- in respect of Jagi Road Land. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of treating gross rent

M/S SUNCITY NIKETAN PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

220 (Delhi): "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant

LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

220-222/Kol/2016 2 M/s.Lalji & Sons. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. Before him the main contention raised by the assessee was that the AO assumed his jurisdiction without issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee challenged the validity of said assessment made

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2\nITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024\n02. At the time of hearing the Id. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground\nno.1 which read as under:-\n“1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of\nsection 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable]\na) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BRINDA DAGA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2) of the\nAct, shall henceforth, be issued in these revised formats only. The Systems Directorate\nis effecting necessary changes in the 1TBA module in this regard\". This simply means\nthat all notices u/s 143(2) henceforth, shall be issued online in the revised formats subject\nto the Directorate of Systems of the CBDT updating the said revised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

reassessment proceedings initiated after the finalisation of the accounts.” Thus the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Court cannot be applied in the instant case before us. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We uphold accordingly. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 30. Next issue raised by Revenue

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

220 (P&H), wherein it was held that – “Therefore, in a case where a return is filed and is processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and no notice under sub-section 2 of section 143 thereafter is served on the assessee within the stipulated period of 12 months, the assessment proceeding u/s 143 come

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

220 (P&H), wherein it was held that – “Therefore, in a case where a return is filed and is processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and no notice under sub-section 2 of section 143 thereafter is served on the assessee within the stipulated period of 12 months, the assessment proceeding u/s 143 come

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

220 (P&H), wherein it was held that – “Therefore, in a case where a return is filed and is processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and no notice under sub-section 2 of section 143 thereafter is served on the assessee within the stipulated period of 12 months, the assessment proceeding u/s 143 come

KAMLESH SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WARD-4(30, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2) of the\nAct, shall henceforth, be issued in these revised formats only. The Systems Directorate\nis effecting necessary changes in the 1TBA module in this regard\". This simply means\nthat all notices u/s 143(2) henceforth, shall be issued online in the revised formats subject\nto the Directorate of Systems of the CBDT updating the said revised

MAN MOHAN GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2) of the\nAct, shall henceforth, be issued in these revised formats only. The Systems Directorate\nis effecting necessary changes in the 1TBA module in this regard\". This simply means\nthat all notices u/s 143(2) henceforth, shall be issued online in the revised formats subject\nto the Directorate of Systems of the CBDT updating the said revised

M/S. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ASST. DIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

section 147/143(3) dated 2nd March 2003. In the said order the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,32,28,112/- on the ground that procurement fees were in the nature of commission and therefore tax paid by CIL on behalf of the Assessee needs to grossed up and hence such tax paid by the CIL on behalf

ADIT(IT)-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

section 147/143(3) dated 2nd March 2003. In the said order the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,32,28,112/- on the ground that procurement fees were in the nature of commission and therefore tax paid by CIL on behalf of the Assessee needs to grossed up and hence such tax paid by the CIL on behalf