BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

65 results for “reassessment”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi288Mumbai228Jaipur94Ahmedabad75Chennai71Kolkata65Hyderabad61Bangalore60Cochin36Chandigarh30Indore25Surat21Raipur19Nagpur19Patna18Pune18Cuttack18Amritsar17Lucknow12Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam9Agra7Karnataka5Jabalpur3Rajkot3Ranchi3Telangana3Guwahati2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26379Section 143(3)77Section 14871Section 14752Section 271A41Section 6840Addition to Income39Section 153A32Section 271(1)(c)32Penalty

SMT. RASHMI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 274

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed on mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

24
Reassessment18
Reopening of Assessment16

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2372/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 M/s Suprabha Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Opportunity that is to be given

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2373/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 M/s Suprabha Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Opportunity that is to be given

ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI PRABAL KANTI PRAMANIK, PURBA MEDINIPUR

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

ITA 821/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.821/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Circle – 27, Haldia Vs. Shri Prabal Kantipramanik Dubey House, Basudevpur, Garkamalpur, Mahishadal, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Dist: Purbamedinipur, W.B, Purbamedinipur – 721 602. 721628 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeypp4276P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Revenue/Department By :Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Assessee By :Shri T.P. Kaur, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue,Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-7/C-27/14-15, Dated 13.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 05.03.2014. 2. Before Us, The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Kaur, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

section 275(1) (a) of the Act, as explained (supra). We also rely of the Judgment of MumbaiI.T.A.T. in the case of Hongkong& Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. Vs.Deputy Director of Income Tax (lntl. Tax),3(1) [2012] 136 ITD 357(Mumbai) in which the Hon'ble Tribunal had held that miscellaneousproceedings are continuous proceedings and which do not extendlimitation prescribed

SUSHIL KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after 9 Sushil Kumar Paul A.Y. 2016-17 hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should

ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AUTO CARE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

reassessment order. Admittedly, the order of re- assessment was not subject matter of revision proceedings u/s 263 or 264 of the Act. Hence the assessee’s case squarely falls under clause (c ) of section 275

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed through Covid-19 Pandemic and various restrictions were made and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of suo moto Writ Petition

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, Office staff on behalf of Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed through Covid-19 Pandemic and I.T.A. No. 363/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarika Dugar 4 various restrictions were made and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In the present case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as 31-3-1970 was the last day of that period. Service under

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

275 would not be applicable to order passed under section 271B. Hence, ground no. 1 of the appeal is rejected. 7. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed and therefore they are dismissed as not pressed. 8. Regarding ground No. 4, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not consider the fact that the assessee throughout the assessment

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

275 would not be applicable to order passed under section 271B. Hence, ground no. 1 of the appeal is rejected. 7. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed and therefore they are dismissed as not pressed. 8. Regarding ground No. 4, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not consider the fact that the assessee throughout the assessment

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

ITA 2334/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2332/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

ITA 2333/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271A

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 724/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O No.11/Kol/2020 (In I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Cross-Objector) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Dr Respondent By : Shri K. K. Chhaparia, Fca & Nirav Sheth, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Arising Out Of The Order Dated 20.03.2015 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanojia, DRFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Chhaparia, FCA & Nirav Sheth, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

Section 147 of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon the reasons so recorded reflected at page 56 of the paper-book filed before us by the assessee which does not speak of any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year in question. Thus

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals\nof the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.2178, 1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Accpa9340F\Nita No. 1613/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2017-18)\Ndcit, Circle 1,\Naaykar Bhawan, Matigara,\Nsiliguri-734004,\Nwest Bengal\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Nsushil Mitruka\Ng208, City Centre, Office Block,\Np.O. Matigara, Siliguri,\Ndarjeeling, Siliguri-734010,\Nwest Bengal\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\Nshri Sk Tulsian, Ar\Nrevenue By\Nshri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N03.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N18.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Against\Nthe Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.08.2025, 27.05.2025 For A.Y.\N2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Appeals Are Relating\Nto Same Assessee & Involves Commons Issues, Therefore All These\Nappeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity.\Npage 2\Nita Nos.2178,1630,1630 & 1631/Kol/2025\Nsushil Mitruka; Ays 2014-15, 15-16, 16-17 & 17-18\Nfirst Of All We Shall Take Ita No. 2178/Kol/2025 A.Y. 214-15 For\Nadjudication.\Nα.Υ. 2014-15\Nita No. 2178/Kol/2025\N2.\Nthe Issue Raised In Ground No.1 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)\Nupholding The Reopening Of Assessment, Which Was Based Upon\Nborrowed Satisfaction Without Examining The Records & Without\Napplication Of Mind & Accordingly, The Reopening Of Assessment Bas\Nbad In Law.\N2.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

reassessment made by the Ld. AO by ignoring the\nfact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of\nassessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in\nthe case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003]\n259 ITR 19 (SC).\n3. 1. The facts of the case have been discussed while

SUSHIL MITRUKA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

reassessment made by the ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of assessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 3.1. The facts of the case have been discussed while dealing

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SUSHIL MITRUKA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

reassessment made by the ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of assessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 3.1. The facts of the case have been discussed while dealing

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

reassessment made by the ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of assessment were not disposed off as per the procedural laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 3.1. The facts of the case have been discussed while dealing

EMERALD COMPANY LTD,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.R Kothari, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 292B

reassessment proceedings and the same cannot be made applicable for revisional proceedings as contemplated u/s. 263 of the Act. Moreover, the provisions of section 292BB would not come to the rescue of the ITA No. 428/Kol/2015-C-AM 2 M/s. Emerald Company Ltd revenue when there is a basic fault on the assumption of jurisdiction itself on a non-existent entity