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

reassessment, there is no need to\nadjudicate other grounds.”\n(d) Recently The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of 'Shyam Sunder\nKhandelwal v. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan)', had held that:\n\"Section 153A, read with sections 148 and 153C, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961\nSearch and seizure Assessment in case of (Section 153C

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

reassessment starts only after serving of notice u/s 148 of the Act i.e. nine (9) months from the end of financial year in which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the 9 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Alembic Merchants P.Ltd assessee. Therefore, admittedly in this case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon

DEEPAK BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 263(2) provides that no order shall be passed u/s 263(1) after expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in this case the assessee filed his original return of income on 30.03.2010 and the return of the assessee was summarily

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CER-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

section 263 from the reassessment order, which is not a justifiable stand. For the sake of argument, if ld. Assessing Officer has committed an error of not examining all the loan transactions, then, that error crept in the original scrutiny assessment and that should have been corrected qua that order by the ld. Commissioner and not in reassessment order, which

VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

section 263 from the reassessment order, which is not a justifiable stand. For the sake of argument, if ld. Assessing Officer has committed an error of not examining all the loan transactions, then, that error crept in the original scrutiny assessment and that should have been corrected qua that order by the ld. Commissioner and not in reassessment order, which

GAUTAM CHAND KANKARIA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order dated 23.12.2019, he can revise the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 31.12.2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue in the case of CIT –vs.- Alagendrn Financial Limited reported in 293

M/S. SHYAM STEEL MANUFACTURING LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOVA ISPAT LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

293 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that where that part of order of assessment was found to be prejudicial to interest of revenue which had nothing to do with the reassessment proceedings and never a subject-matter of the reassessment proceedings, the doctrine of merger would not apply and the period of limitation provided for in section

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]

293 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) CIT –vs.- ICICI Bank Limited (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.). 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied heavily on the order of LD. PCIT by submitting that the assessee is not put to any loss by the exercise of jurisdiction as the assessee would be given sufficient time and enough opportunity to present

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered tliat in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

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]

293 of paper book) and furnished the relevant details viz., bank statements etc., which fact the AO has acknowledged in the reassessment order. We also note that the AO during the reassessment proceedings issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the directors of all 7 Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13 shareholder companies and acknowledged in the reassessment

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

293 ITR 1(SC). The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the impugned revisionary order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT is invalid and may be quashed. 6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the contention of the Ld. AR of the assessee by submitting that in terms of Explanation (3) to section 147 of the Act which empowered

SHRI FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia........................................………...…..…Appellant 4A, Sayed Sally Street, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adfpc9919G] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 When The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3)/147 On 26.12.2018 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2018. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT invoked his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and held that apart from the investment in Global Capital Markets Ltd., the assessee during the year I.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia had shown capital gains from the sale of shares

MITA SAHA (KHAN),HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD -1(4) HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

reassessment is bad in law. 2 Mita Saha (Khan), AY 2009-10 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee who is a doctor working with the medical services of Govt. of West Bengal, had filed her return of income on 31.07.2009 computing net income of Rs.5,31,290/-. Thereafter, on 04.01.2013, the AO recorded the reasons

AAYUSH COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Aayush Commerce Private Limited Pcit, Kolkata – 2 Maurya Patna Vs South Gandhi Maidan Patna - 800001 [Pan : Aacca0933B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 09/03/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 311 (Three Hundred & Eleven Days) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 09/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation. Vide This Order A

293/- during the financial year 2010-11 and debited the total expenses of Rs.16,84,022/- in the profit and loss A/c. The ld. Pr. CIT noted that the Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) with respect to the exempt income. Consequently

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

section 148 was issued. Validity of I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 & C.O. 4/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd reopening was not challenged upto Tribunal and additions were challenged on merits only. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with some directions to reexamine the issue on merits. When the matter came back to the assessing officer

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons to believe as detailed under :- "From the reliable sources, it has come to notice that M/s Sunder Lal Mohan Lal Sharda & others had received Rs. 20852219/- as mining lease expenditure and Rs.73691121 as Transfer of Mining lease (Capital Expenditure) from M/s Sharda Mines Pvt. Ltd. (Total Rs.94543340) during

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

reassessment order was not valid.” 9. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above case Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above case- -law to the facts of the case on hand, I have to hold that the reopening is bad in law. the case on hand, I have to hold that the reopening

M/S. REGAL VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

293 ITR 1(SC).The Ld. AR submitted that on this account the revisionary jurisdiction is barred by limitation. 6. Secondly, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment framed u/s. 263/147/143(3) of the Act dated 20.02.2024 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 is invalid and cannot

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

293 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. AR further submitted that the said decision of the Apex Court has been followed in the case of Lark Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 655 (Bom), wherein the original assessment was u/s 143(1) then reopened u/s 147 of the Act wherein the issue for which 263 done was not there