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)

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C, Corollary being that after seizing of operation- alperiod of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

24, 2020 Notification No. 35/2020 was issued by the CBDT in exercise of the power of Section 3(1) of the Ordinance extending the time for issue of notice under Section 148 to March 31, 2021. The said notification came into force from June 30, 2020. On September 29, 2020 the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

24, 2020 Notification No. 35/2020 was issued by the CBDT in exercise of the power of Section 3(1) of the Ordinance extending the time for issue of notice under Section 148 to March 31, 2021. The said notification came into force from June 30, 2020. On September 29, 2020 the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property & Investment

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property & Investment

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 and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

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 and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

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 and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

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 and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

24, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 dated 27.03.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. On receipt of notice in the Revenue’s appeal, assessee has filed Cross Objection bearing No. 13/KOL/2023. The Revenue

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. In other\nwords, the Assessing Officer had 465 days in hand for completing the\nreassessment and the respective last date for such completion was\nMay 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021\nwhich in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation.\n011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24,620/- Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad. Uttar Pradesh (Roof arca) Registry no- 3650 2 30.05.2016 414A. Kasba-Mounath, 2,30,000/- 6,52,440/- Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-3651 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. 3 18.06.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, 2,00,000/- 552,600/- Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

Section 148A(b). The Court ultimately found that the period of limitation for issuance of a notice for reassessment would have expired on 12 July 2022 and consequently the reassessment notice dated 30 July 2022 being liable to be quashed and set aside. 24. A similar factual position emerges from the disclosures which appear in W.P.(C) 6849/2023 and where

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24,420/- on 25.04.2022, i.e. the total income was the same as shown in the original return filed on 25.10.2018. The return was taken up under scrutiny and the total income was assessed at ₹96,97,730/- after making an addition of Rs.1,69,565/- to the income assessed under section 143(3) vide order dated 21.04.2021 at Rs.95

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date\nof receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the\nAssessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:\n5.2.14. Hence, from a bare reading of section 153C, it is clear that section 153C inter-\nalia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section\n147/148/149/151/153

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24-06-2024. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the exemption of Rs. 3,98,75,551/- claimed by the assessee u/s 11(1). 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred while

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24 of the India- Kenya DTAA. During the year, he had income of both Kenya and India but while filing the Indian ITR for the impugned assessment year 2019-20, the Form No. 67 prescribed in rule 128 of the rules for claiming FTC was inadvertently not uploaded along with the ITR which was uploaded on 02.02.2021 The return

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income