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

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

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

10. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, [2011] 336 ITR 136/ 200 Taxman 242/ 12 Taxmann.com 74 (Delhi). In the said case, the Division Bench had also examined Explanation 3 to Section 147, which was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Reference was made

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed. 7.4. In the case of CIT vs Atul Jain CIT vs Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: "Held dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings were not valid and were liable to the quashed. 7.4. In the case of CIT vs Atul Jain CIT vs Atul Jain reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: reported in 299 ITR 383 it has been held as follows: "Held dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken

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]

reassessment proceedings. 8. The first aspect which needs to be examined is as to whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present appeals in which he has challenged the validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the 11 Shri Udit Kumar

DIPTI MEHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14. The second line of precedent is reflected in a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 . The Rajasthan High Court construed the words used by Parliament in section 147 particularly the words that the Assessing Officer 'may assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is con- cluded as under i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under sec- tion 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated: 15 Suresh Kumar Poddar iii) in case any incriminating

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

Section 147 of the Act. Here, we note that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed on 31-03-2015 u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was brought to our notice that the assessee’s premise was searched on 30-11-2012 and consequent thereto, proceedings u/s 153A was initiated for the relevant

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

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]

reassessment proceedings. 11 Devansh Exports, AY 2010-11 8. The first aspect which needs to be examined is as to whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present appeals in which he has challenged the validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

10\n\n13\nITA No.2695/KOL/2024\n\nPag\nexplained the meaning of the phrase \"reason to believe\" (used in Sec 147 of the\nAct) and held the re-assessment proceedings initiated in that case as not\nsustainable in law. The relevant para of which are reproduced here, as under.\n\"11....... it is clear that the reasonable belief on the basis

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

section 2(14) of the Act and expression of the AO “requires much deeper scrutiny” indicated that he was mere embarking on mere presumptions without any belief much less belief based on reason and material and thus the reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

section 2(14) of the Act and expression of the AO “requires much deeper scrutiny” indicated that he was mere embarking on mere presumptions without any belief much less belief based on reason and material and thus the reassessment was not valid. 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the various decisions as discussed above

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

reassessment and initiation of proceeding u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. b) That the original assessment having been completed u/s. 143(3), initiation of re- assessment proceeding beyond four years period was invalid in law without establishing the failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully & truly all material facts for its assessment for the relevant

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

14, 2017 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Principal CIT – 2, Kolkata dated 28.03.2017 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the grounds raised by the assessee therein read as under: “1. For that the order passed under section 263 of the Income

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)

10, wherein the grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-opening proceedings u/s 147 were bad in law and, as such, ought to have quashed the same. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that as per proviso to section 147

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)

10, wherein the grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-opening proceedings u/s 147 were bad in law and, as such, ought to have quashed the same. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that as per proviso to section 147

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.

u/s 143(3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 14 7(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

14 (SC) ; Gupta Traders v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 504 (All) ; CIT v. Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 477 (SC) and CIT v. Goel Bros. [1982] 135 ITR 511 (All), etc. The case of an expatriate employee was to be decided on the basis of the provisions of article XIV of the treaty, whereas corporate income