VRINDA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” 23. A bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call

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]

147 had become time barred, the same stood revived because of the Explanation. 15. We find that in the impugned order the ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.P. Jani ITO Vs Induprasad D. Bhatt (supra). In the decided case the assessee had claimed that his assessment was reopened

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

129 taxmann.com 68 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening proceedings where AO issued reopening notice on the ground that information was received from AIMS module that shares sold by assessee were of penny stocks. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening since information was specific with regard to transactions of penny stocks entered into by assessee

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

129 taxmann.com 68 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening proceedings where AO issued reopening notice on the ground that information was received from AIMS module that shares sold by assessee were of penny stocks. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening since information was specific with regard to transactions of penny stocks entered into by assessee

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

129 taxmann.com 68 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening proceedings where AO issued reopening notice on the ground that information was received from AIMS module that shares sold by assessee were of penny stocks. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening since information was specific with regard to transactions of penny stocks entered into by assessee

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

129 taxmann.com 68 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening proceedings where AO issued reopening notice on the ground that information was received from AIMS module that shares sold by assessee were of penny stocks. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the reopening since information was specific with regard to transactions of penny stocks entered into by assessee

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 133(6) of the Act, the NSE issued a letter on 16/01/2017 and stated as follows: 16/01/2017 and stated as follows:- “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during the period from April 01, “Please find no the client code modification details during

TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

129. An application to the Assessing Officer to grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and from initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC shall be made in Form No. 68.]” Mere submission of appellant in writing instead of Form 68 cannot be reason for granting immunity from penalty u/s 270A. Since the appellant

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

reassessment proceedings. 10. Relevant bank statement of the assessee evidencing transactions with M/s Pushkar Trading and Holding Pvt Ltd and confirmation of accounts received by the party. 11. Objection filed by the assessee and disposal order by AO. 12. Reply filed by the assessee dated 22-10-2018. 13. Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated

PARASHNATH INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 9.1. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings for reopening the case U/S 147/148 of the Act which was disposed off vide letter dtd. 06112/2019. Another notice U/S 142(1) of the Act issued on 06.12.2019 in terms of section 129 of the Act. But assessee, not filed any documents as requisitioned uls 142(1) of the Act on 06.12.2019 on the date fixed for furnishing

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

129(Asr)/2015, for A.Y. 2005-06 and in ‘Krishna Kumar Tripathi vs. ITO’, order dated 31.7.2017, passed by the ITAT, Agra (SMC), in ITA No. 87/Agra/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12. 9. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) was also followed in ‘Sh. Amrik Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the ITAT, Amritsar (SMC) in ITA No.630(Asr)/2015

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

129(Asr)/2015, for A.Y. 2005-06 and in ‘Krishna Kumar Tripathi vs. ITO’, order dated 31.7.2017, passed by the ITAT, Agra (SMC), in ITA No. 87/Agra/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12. 9. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) was also followed in ‘Sh. Amrik Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the ITAT, Amritsar (SMC) in ITA No.630(Asr)/2015

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

129(Asr)/2015, for A.Y. 2005-06 and in ‘Krishna Kumar Tripathi vs. ITO’, order dated 31.7.2017, passed by the ITAT, Agra (SMC), in ITA No. 87/Agra/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12. 9. ‘Sijwali’ (Supra) was also followed in ‘Sh. Amrik Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the ITAT, Amritsar (SMC) in ITA No.630(Asr)/2015

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

129 Limited Vs. PCIT-1, 479/PUN/2017 Bench Aurangabad Argument:- No addition u/s 68 if identity of subscribers has been furnished. CIT vs Lovely (2008) 216 CTR 195 The Hon’ble Supreme 130 Exports (P) Ltd Court Argument:- Jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed in case of inadequate enquiry: PCIT vs. Singhal (2022) 6 NYPCTR The Hon’ble High Court

ROHIT BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

147 of the Act, a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act was required to be issued by the competent authority/Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. The ld. counsel has submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer having pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee. He, therefore

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to re-open assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to re-open. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power