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

8. In the case of Samit Ray (ITA No. 780/KOL/2024), ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee sold land of different Mouza villages for a consideration of Rs.1,49,36,614/-, whereas for the purpose of stamp duty payment, the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was Rs.2,77,55,112/-. On the analogy of discussion made

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

8. In the case of Samit Ray (ITA No. 780/KOL/2024), ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee sold land of different Mouza villages for a consideration of Rs.1,49,36,614/-, whereas for the purpose of stamp duty payment, the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was Rs.2,77,55,112/-. On the analogy of discussion made

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

8. In the case of Samit Ray (ITA No. 780/KOL/2024), ld. Pr. CIT found that the assessee sold land of different Mouza villages for a consideration of Rs.1,49,36,614/-, whereas for the purpose of stamp duty payment, the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was Rs.2,77,55,112/-. On the analogy of discussion made

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

255)(SC)] 8 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited He submitted that when two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, would not be attracted and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

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

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

255 ITR 49 (Cal) for reopening of the case. However, the case, Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 262 ITR 605 (SC). Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case

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

255 ITR 49 (Cal) for reopening of the case. However, the case, Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 262 ITR 605 (SC). Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case

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

255 ITR 49 (Cal) for reopening of the case. However, the case, Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 262 ITR 605 (SC). Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case

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

255 ITR 49 (Cal) for reopening of the case. However, the case, Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Ld. CIT(A) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 262 ITR 605 (SC). Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case

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

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)

section 147 on the basis of changed of opinion which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The law is well settled on this issue. As the proceedings for the AY 2005-06 have to be judged on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO and it is not possible to substitute, delete or add anything to such

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

reassessment needs to be quashed. 4.1.1. We have heard the rival submissions and we hold that while adjudicating whether the reopening of assessment is valid or not what is required to be seen is whether the Learned AO had any material at the stage of issue of notice on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief

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

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

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

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

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

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

reassessment issued under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act has the effect of superseding the assessment already made on the assessee and thereby removing the finality to the assessment already made, whether or not it is the subject-matter of further proceedings in appeal, revision etc. and therefore intimation does not survive after the issue of notices

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) justified by directing that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not required to be added to the Book Profit for the purpose of computation of income under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that section 115JB clearly