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

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

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

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

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

reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the\nprovisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.”\n03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on\n30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income\nat ₹162,97,59,233

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

233 (Areva T & D India Ltd. vs. ACIT where the view taken was that non- issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

233/- has not been clear, the Assessment Order passed by the AO u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without examining the above claim, has resulted in the said assessment order being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. (3) Apart from the above, the assessee’s claim of operating expenses

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

section 143(2) was received but opportunity was availed, then reassessment is valid. Similar views were expressed in the case of CIT vs. T.C.P. Limited (2010) 235 CTR 414 Mad. Further, in any technical difficulty, the proceeding may be irregular but not invalid. The procedural irregularity can be rectified later as per the ratio laid down in the case

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was correct and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal. Therefore

M/S. MUSE ADVERTISING AND MEDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

233 (Bom). He further took us through the notice(s) issued by the AO’s predecessor in the course of original assessment and pointed out that the AO had specifically called for the details of share capital raised by the assessee during the year and after making enquiries u/s 133(6) of the Act from these shareholder(s) including RCPL

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

233/- did not allegedly match with the transactions visible in the bank account in HSBC Bank (supra). Thereafter the ld. AO proceeded to record reasons under clause (a) of explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act, indicating that an amount of Rs. 5,21,17,075/- had escaped assessment. 2.1. It is seen from ld. AO’s order that

SHRI RAJ KUMAR GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1028/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Goel -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Advpg 0006 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

233/-. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 and assessment was completed u/s 143(1) read with Section 147 determining the total income at Rs. 28,26,345/- by adding an amount of Rs. 25,17,112/- as bogus purchases made from hawla dealers. On appeal the first appellate authority confirmed the same. Further aggrieved the assessee is in 2 Shri

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:

233/-. The Relinquishment/Waiver of liabilities and Approvals are mentioned in Para 28 on Page 17 of the order. As per S. No. 2 thereof, no Person shall be entitled to take, initiate, institute or continue any suits, steps or McNally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: AYs: 2009-10 and 2013-14 proceedings against the Corporate Debtor or its Assets (whether

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:

233/-. The Relinquishment/Waiver of liabilities and Approvals are mentioned in Para 28 on Page 17 of the order. As per S. No. 2 thereof, no Person shall be entitled to take, initiate, institute or continue any suits, steps or McNally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: AYs: 2009-10 and 2013-14 proceedings against the Corporate Debtor or its Assets (whether