ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C, Corollary being that after seizing of operationalperiod of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement with

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

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148. This is clearly not section (1) of section 142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148. This is clearly not section (1) of section 142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure

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

139.” The section 149 relates to time limit for notice sys as under:- 149(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a)……. (b) if four years, but not more then six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 148. The relevant provisions of Section 153C of the Act are reproduced below:\n\"153C(1)\nNotwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section\n149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, —\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned,\nbelongs to; or\nany books

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]

139(1). It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had tried to claim benefit of carry forward of loss on the basis of the order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. 14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should

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

reassessment\nproceedings u/s 147, vide Notice u/s148\n\nSir,\nThis is with reference to show cause notice dated 20.01.2022 providing reasons for issuance of\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act. In this connection we would like to submit as under.\n1. In this case, the retum of income was filed u/s 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total\nincome of Rs.8

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]

139 on 19-10-2001 declaring total income of Rs. 5,49,880/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search u/s 132 was thereafter conducted against Mangal Steel Group, to which the assessee belongs, on 28-07-2011. Although in the said search no material was found

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]

u/s 148, read with section 147 for reopening the assessment and issued notice and assumed jurisdiction to re-assess the income of assessee. However, in the re-assessment order passed on 26.05.2015, pursuant to the notice to re-open, the AO did not made any assessment of Rs. 2,71,500/- representing the amount of loss claimed by assessee which

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’).

139 of the Act along with the refund application under section 237 of the Act, action could not have been taken under section 147/148 of the Act. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the negative, i. e. , against the revenue. " (p. 390) 11. We would arrive at this very destination even if we were to traverse along

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

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year:[Emphasis given by us]” 8. We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Calcutta Discount

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully ITA No. 2196/Kol/2014 & CO 05/Kol/015 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO Wd-11(1) Kol. Vs. Srei Capital Markets Ltd. Page 6 and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year" A plain look

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]

139(1) may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 and thus the AO has grossly erred in framing the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is undisputed position

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]

139(1) may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 and thus the AO has grossly erred in framing the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is undisputed position

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]

139(1) may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 and thus the AO has grossly erred in framing the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is undisputed position

INDIAN WIRE AND STEEL PRODUCTS ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2Nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaafi 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end vide order dt. 04/05/2012. The reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year and hence

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]

section 147 in pursuance of such invalid initiation is liable to be cancelled. I order accordingly.” 16. In the present case also the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated only for the purpose of verification and examination which is not the scope of reassessment proceedings. It would be the case of rather reasons to suspect rather than reasons to belief

H,L.G.MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,ASANSOL vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2007-08 Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Sen Railegh Road Asansol – 713 305 West Bengal [Pan : Aabch 3927 P] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Asansol……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, 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 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th , 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4.1. On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the On a perusal of the reasons recorded, I find that there is no allegation that the assessee has failed