INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. SHIVRASHI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is hereby treated as allowed

47. The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop. Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be completed prior to the expiry

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost of the property is to be taken which is the market value of the said property on 1.4.1981, increased by indexed cost

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost of the property is to be taken which is the market value of the said property on 1.4.1981, increased by indexed cost

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 are in challenge before us. The assessee- company has filed its return under section 139(1) of the Act on 21.09.2011 and processed u/s 143(1)(a) and the notice for reopening has been issued on 28.03.2016 under section 148 of the Act. Though reasons recorded have been extracted supra but for the sake

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,091), Electricity Recovery (Rs.1,16,92,957), Service Charges (Rs.\n1,69,77,352) and Permission fee (2,97,85,826) It has also been noted that these\nreceipts were shown as other operating Revenue at Note 19, of the profit & loss\nAccount.\nAs per the I.T. Act, 1961, Income from House Property is only possible in the\ncases

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

47,945/- was paid on the said loan, on which TDS of 274,795/-\nwas duly deducted under Section 194A of the Act. (Page-90)\nDuring the course of the assessment proceedings, notice/s 142(1)\nissued seeking details of unsecured loan raised during the financial\nyear 2010-11, indicating the name(s), complete postal address and\nPAN

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

reassessment proceedings may kindly not be Initiated against us...." The assessee failed to substantiate its claim without any documentary evidence and the claim of the assessee is not accepted. Therefore, it is considered to be a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. In this case, a sum of Rs. 1,69,40,316/- has escaped

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

reassessment proceedings may kindly not be Initiated against us...." The assessee failed to substantiate its claim without any documentary evidence and the claim of the assessee is not accepted. Therefore, it is considered to be a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. In this case, a sum of Rs. 1,69,40,316/- has escaped

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

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

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 the 1961 Act is not a condition precedent

WEST BENGAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,091), Electricity Recovery (Rs.1,16,92,957), Service Charges (Rs.\n1,69,77,352) and Permission fee (2,97,85,826) It has also been noted that these\nreceipts were shown as other operating Revenue at Note 19, of the profit & loss\nAccount.\nAs per the I.T. Act, 1961, Income from House Property is only possible in the\ncases

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-9 (4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction no. 1/2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

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

47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward-9 (4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction no. 1/2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

47 & 46/KOL/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19) Rajshri Iron Industries Private Asst. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, CC 3(1), Kolkata 10, 2nd Floor, R.NO.206/4/ Clive 110, Shantipally Kolkata-700107, Vs. Row, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : S/Shri Praveen Kishore & Santunu Ghosh, DRs Date of hearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

47 & 46/KOL/2025 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19) Rajshri Iron Industries Private Asst. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, CC 3(1), Kolkata 10, 2nd Floor, R.NO.206/4/ Clive 110, Shantipally Kolkata-700107, Vs. Row, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : S/Shri Praveen Kishore & Santunu Ghosh, DRs Date of hearing

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated." ".... A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries

HILTON DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. CIRCLE 7(1), KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection\nof the assessee is allowed

47,790/-.\n6. Before us following sequence of events have been given with regard to issuance of notice\nu/s.148 and various letters issued and filed before the issuance of final notice u/s.148 dated\n27/02/2022.\nParticulars\nAY: 2015-16\nNotice u/s 148 as per old regime (deemed to\nbe show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act.)\n29/06/2021\nIssue Letter/deemed

SOLO HOTELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. CIRCLE 11(1).KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross\nObjection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and\nnotice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India\nVs. Rajiv Bansal reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 17. The Ld. AR cited\nthe decisions of ITAT passed in ITA No. 5812/Mum/2024 “C” Bench,\nMumbai and also

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 were itself bad-in-law and non- est and the same cannot be a subject matter of the revisionary proceedings and thus on this legal ground itself, the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act are quashed. 17. Now dealing with the second fold of contention made by the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under section