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

255 ITR 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

255 ITR 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

HARSH COMTRADE PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.225/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Harsh Comtrade Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-5(4), Kolkata 1/A, Stuti Apartment, Near Ashok Panhouse, City Light, Surat, Gujarat Pan No. :Aabcg 8847 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.12.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059161646(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Mehul Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Submitted That He Has Filed Written Submissions Before The Tribunal Which Has Been Placed In The Paper Book At Pages 90 To 104 Which Reads As Follows :- Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata - 'Smc' Bench In The Case Of Harsh Comtrade Pvt. Ltd Sub: Written Submission For A.Y. 2012-13 Ref: Assessee'S Appeal No. 225/Kol/2024 Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 May It Please To Your Honour 1. In This Case, The Case Is Re-Opened On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded On 23.03.2018. The Same Is Reproduced

reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 170 and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

KRISHNA GHOSH,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. ACIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

255 and ITAT Delhi in the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia Vs. Krishna Ghosh 2 ACIT reported in 1 ITR (Trib) 484. The CIT-A dismissed the appeal of by observing that there was no regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act prior to the search operation and it is paradoxical to equate the intimation as issued u/sec

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the reopening u/s. 148, ignoring the provisions contained in first proviso to section 147 of the Act although the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment for this assessment year. 1.2 That

M/S K.M. KHADIM & CO.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

255 (All.) The Ld. A.R. therefore argued that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT in second round treating the assessment order passed pursuant to the direction by the Ld. PCIT in the first round in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The ld AR contended that the order

A.C.I.T., CIR-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

255 ITR 273 (SC) wherein it was held that the Learned AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in Explanation to Section 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, the ground nos. 3 to 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 4.6. Disallowance

M/S INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

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

section 263 of the Act. Before adjudicating the issues arising from the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT, we have to remind ourselves as to the scope of revisional jurisdiction by Pr. CIT/CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings on the issue which has been referred to by the ld. CIT in the impugned order and since the ld. Assessing Officer has taken a permissible view in law, therefore, ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The assesese placed reliance on plethora of judgments and the same are referred below:- S.No. Title

M/S PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A. No.93/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2005-06 M/S. Paramount Properties & I.T.O., Wd-3(1), Kolkata. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Estate Developments Ltd. -Vs- Kolkata – 700 069. 3, Pretoria Street, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 8731 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

255 ITR 49 which was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2nd April 2003 reported 262 ITR 0605. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:- “Reassessment—Full and true disclosure—Notice after expiry of four years—Proviso to s. 147 prescribes limits of four years in respect of cases other than those covered under

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

255 ITR 458) wherein it has been held that proceedings u/s. 154 cannot be initiated after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

255 ITR 458) wherein it has been held that proceedings u/s. 154 cannot be initiated after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

255 ITR 458) wherein it has been held that proceedings u/s. 154 cannot be initiated after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2). 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” We understand from the aforesaid discussion that the issue of notice for rectification and passing of orders under section

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

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

255 ITR 273 (SC)/[2002] 174 CTR 521 (SC)[02-05-2002]. It is further stated that Section 115JB of the Act does not warrant any such upward adjustment in respect of provision for marked-to-market loss and hence, the addition in this regard is without any basis and liable to be quashed. 4.4 We have considered the facts