M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

M/S. AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceeding was set aside. The initial view was that failure to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

deduction of Rs. 19.51. As such, there was no under assessment of income. 5. It was further submitted that the said fact of fire breaking out in Dankuni Unit and loss of Rs.26.69 crores, being claim not received by the assessee from the Insurance Company was duly mentioned in the financial statements and the same was duly perused and examined

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]

deducted and deposited with the Govt. Treasury. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was framed vide order dated 18.1.2013 assessing the income at Rs. 23,86,168/- by making addition in respect of four disallowance namely: i) Disallowance of artist remuneration ii) Disallowance of studio hire charges iii) Disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans

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’).

u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment proceedings. He, in this respect, has made the following written submissions along with case laws: “2. The assessee relies on the following decisions in support of its contentions: a) In Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemet Family Trust vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC) wherein

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment u/s. 147 on the issue of non-deduction of tax at source on cretins expenses claimed as deduction which

M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 10.03.2016. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment is obviously reopened after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year 2009-10-. The Ld. A.R. argued that for reopening the assessment after a period of four years from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

reassessment proceedings was bad in law as it did not satisfy the condition precedent in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 18. We also find merit in the alternate contention made by the Ld. AR that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-03-2016 without first forming reasons to believe that income

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 263, the assessee submitted its explanations and proceedings u/s 263 was dropped without any adverse order. Despite the closure of the proceedings u/s 263 of the act, the Assessing Officer reopened the case u/s 147 and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 citing

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

deducted at source on such payout. As such it should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961, which was not done. f. The assessee has not paid sum of Rs. 24,52,623/- on a/c of Central Excise (1994- 96) and Rs. 2,54,96,800/- on a/c of Entry

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

deducted at source on such payout. As such it should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961, which was not done. f. The assessee has not paid sum of Rs. 24,52,623/- on a/c of Central Excise (1994- 96) and Rs. 2,54,96,800/- on a/c of Entry

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]

deductions under section 36(1)(vii), (viia) and the foreign exchange rate difference. The order of the Commissioner under section 263(2) had not been passed with reference to any issue which had been decided either in the order of the first reassessment or in the order of second reassessment but sought to revise issues decided in the first order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of findings of the survey team in the survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.11.2019. The assessee complied with the said notice by filing the return of income declaring total loss

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the 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 order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act, the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and an omission to do so is a defect which is not curable and an action of AO not to issue such a notice goes to the root of the jurisdiction of an AO to frame valid assessment order