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’).

47 wherein it has been observed that - "the power that can be exercised under section 143(2) to correct the assessment made under section 143(1) does not exclude the power of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 if the ingredients of section 147 are satisfied. It is open to the Assessing Officer to invoke

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

D.C.I.T., CENTAL CIRCLE - 3(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWANATH GARODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of assessee are also dismissed being academic in nature

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjunlalsaini, Am]

reassessment proceedings had become time barred on or before 31.03.2012 and therefore initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 on 16.02.2016 was hit by the law of limitation”. Thereafter, he reproduced Section 149(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under:- " (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,­ (a) if four years have elapsed

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the report from district valuation officer. 4. The ld AO observed in his order as under:- “Since this is a time barring case and the assessment proceedings have to be completed within the stipulated time. Rather depending on the assessee's submission, it is inevitable to substantiate with the preliminary report provided

SRI BIJAY SHANKAR HALWASIYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings in abeyance till the receipt of the report from district valuation officer. 4. The ld AO observed in his order as under:- “Since this is a time barring case and the assessment proceedings have to be completed within the stipulated time. Rather depending on the assessee's submission, it is inevitable to substantiate with the preliminary report provided

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

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 is available on pages no. 47 & 48 of the paper book. The total income of the assessee was accepted as determined in the original assessment order passed under section

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

EMPORIS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the land, in question, was stock-in-trade and not being a capital asset, therefore, consideration/deemed consideration/market value on transfer of the said land was not assessable under the head ‘long-term capital gains’ and that the I.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2014-15 Emporis

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

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

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

reassessment can be made. The word `assess’ in Section 45 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word `reassess’ to completed assessment proceedings. 61.So from the aforesaid dictum of law laid

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

reassessment can be made. The word `assess’ in Section 45 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word `reassess’ to completed assessment proceedings. 61.So from the aforesaid dictum of law laid

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

reassessment can be made. The word `assess’ in Section 45 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word `reassess’ to completed assessment proceedings. 61.So from the aforesaid dictum of law laid

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KANORIA CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.V. Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 944/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 D.C.I.T., Cir – 10(1)..…………………………………………………………...............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd.................................…..................Respondent Park Plaza, 71, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aabck 1291 K] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 944/Kol/2016) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd.................................…........................Appellant Park Plaza, 71, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aabck 1291 K] D.C.I.T., Cir – 10(1)..………………………………………………………….............................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 14, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 16, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 10, Kolkata Dated 26.02.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/K/2016. 2. The Solitary Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Revenue Relates To The Deletion Of The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 2,13,47,159/-

47,159/- and the deduction under section 80IA to that extent was wrongly allowed to it in the assessment completed under section 143(3) leading to escapement of income. He, therefore, reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 31.03.2010 after recording the reasons. The assessee company raised objection to the initiation of reassessment

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor can anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever (surpa) has inter-alia, observed that “………….. it is needless to mention that the reasons are required