M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

revising the invalid order u/s 147 of the Act. This issue has been analysed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) and 147 proceedings has been equated to primary proceedings and the proceedings u/s 263 passed equated to collateral proceedings. It has further been held based

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

revising the invalid order u/s 147 of the Act. This issue has been analysed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) and 147 proceedings has been equated to primary proceedings and the proceedings u/s 263 passed equated to collateral proceedings. It has further been held based

M/S CLASSIC FLOUR AND FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

revising the invalid order u/s 147 of the Act. This issue has been analysed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) and 147 proceedings has been equated to primary proceedings and the proceedings u/s 263 passed equated to collateral proceedings. It has further been held based

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

revising the invalid order u/s 147 of the Act. This issue has been analysed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) and 147 proceedings has been equated to primary proceedings and the proceedings u/s 263 passed equated to collateral proceedings. It has further been held based

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’).

147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act as the Assessing Officer on account of escapement of income due to oversight of Rs.58250/- towards profit on share dealing and of Rs 3000/- non admissible expenditure incurred on share allotment. the assessment was completed by adding the aforesaid amount. Thereafter, the ld. CIT, Kolkata-II exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263

CONCORD INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA vs. PCIT-3, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, rightly contended that the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. On this ground itself the proceedings under section 263

M/S. DEVANSH EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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]

revising the invalid order u/s 147 of the Act. This issue has been analysed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) and 147 proceedings has been equated to primary proceedings and the proceedings u/s 263 passed equated to collateral proceedings. It has further been held based

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

147 of the Act for reopening the assessment that too after satisfying condition precedent given therein. Other than that according to the Ld. AR, the AO was not empowered by law to review his own order and leave alone recommend or put up a proposal to the Ld. Pr. CIT to revise his own order by stating that

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

revise the order u/s. 147 of the Act, the assessee has a legal right legitimately conferred by the law to challenge the validity of the order so passed u/s. 147 of the Act as well as initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR contended that the original proceeding u/s. 147 were null

ANINDITA STEELS LTD.,JHARKHAND vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act on 20/05/2016. 6.1.1. The ld. Pr. CIT proposed to revise this reassessment order The ld. Pr. CIT proposed to revise this reassessment order dt. 20/05/2 dt. 20/05/2016 by giving a showcause notice dt. 08/03/2019. Para 3 & 4 of th giving a showcause notice dt. 08/03/2019. Para 3 & 4 of this notice reads as follows: notice reads

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]

263(2) was barred by limitation”. 13. In the instant case before us also the issue on which the ld. PCIT revised and set aside the reassessment order dated 18.12.2013 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

reassess the income ofthe petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s

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

147 of the Act. We note that the issue in the Barik Biswas; A.Y. 08-09 to 16-17 & 20-21 said reopening of assessment as recorded in the reasons to believe was with regard to cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account. Thereafter the ld. Pr. CIT revised the said assessment order vide its revisionary order u/s