THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

J., has also been time and again approved and applied by the Supreme Court in different cases including the one Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Daye, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs AIR 1970 SC 755 at p. 759. 3.3 Further, the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a different object and purpose should not be lightly and mechanically

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

J., has also been time and again approved and applied by the Supreme Court in different cases including the one Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Daye, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs AIR 1970 SC 755 at p. 759. 3.3 Further, the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a different object and purpose should not be lightly and mechanically

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

27, Haldia after the limitation period for issuance of statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and make 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in s the notice bad in the eyes

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

27, Haldia after the limitation period for issuance of statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and make 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in s the notice bad in the eyes

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27, Haldia after the limitation period for issuance of statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of 143(2) of the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in the Act has set in, goes to the root of the case and makes the notice bad in the eyes of law and consequential

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

27 Examining the proviso [set out above], we find that no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the releva section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if nt assessment year if the following conditions are satisfied: the following conditions

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

27 Examining the proviso [set out above], we find that no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the releva section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if nt assessment year if the following conditions are satisfied: the following conditions

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, AR Revenue by : Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 16/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 10/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year

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

J L ChowringheeSquare,Kolkata, Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, Vs. West Bengal, 700069 West Bengal, 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Bikash Chanda, Shri Aakash Agrawal, Ars Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Earlier case was heard

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

J L ChowringheeSquare,Kolkata, Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, Vs. West Bengal, 700069 West Bengal, 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Bikash Chanda, Shri Aakash Agrawal, Ars Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Earlier case was heard

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

J L ChowringheeSquare,Kolkata, Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, Vs. West Bengal, 700069 West Bengal, 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Bikash Chanda, Shri Aakash Agrawal, Ars Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Earlier case was heard

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

J L ChowringheeSquare,Kolkata, Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, Vs. West Bengal, 700069 West Bengal, 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Bikash Chanda, Shri Aakash Agrawal, Ars Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Earlier case was heard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act i.e Reason to believe escapement of income should be that of AO and not that of any other authority, or else it will in-derogation of one of the basic feature of the Constitution of India ie, the Rule of Law, wherein the Parliament has empowered this reopening jurisdiction only to that of Assessing Officer

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

J.] on 25-5-2023 and it was directed that there shall be a stay on the continuation of reassessment proceedings. 3.8 Thereafter, the petition was listed with the above-captioned batch of petitions on several dates and arguments were heard on behalf of the assessees and the revenue. 4. Counsel for the parties state that the reassessment proceedings were

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, 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]

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 15. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

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

J L\nNehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata,\nWest Bengal, 700071\n(Respondent)\nShri J.P. Khaitan &\nShri Bikash Chanda,\nShri Aakash Agrawal, Ars\nShri Subhendu Datta, DR\n27.01.2025 &\n16.05.2025\n19.05.2025\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, AM:\nEarlier case was heard on 27.01.2025 and thereafter the case\nwas fixed for clarification on 16.05.2025 on certain issues & both the\nparties have been heard

M/S KHUSHI COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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]

27. The case of the Revenue is that the expression “so far as may be, apply” indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 strictly for the purpose of block assessments. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Revenue, since

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

2), it became mandatory that they should have culminated in an order under section 143(3). 10. In Trustees of H. E. H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 the Apex Court has observed that it is "settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

27. The Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 3,17,32,734/- on the basis of payment of TDS done during the previous year on the amounts which were disallowed in earlier years u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deposit of TDS. In the return of income the ITA No.1199/Kol/2012 &1282/Kol/2012- Allahabad Bank A.Y.2008-09 assessee bank has claimed