ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

reassessment has been framed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also hold that shelter u/s 292BB of the Act cannot be taken by the revenue for jurisdictional issue. In the instant case, admittedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee after the filing of the return on 11.3.2005. Hence

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section\n143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under\nSection 143(2) of the Act. However, it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for\nthe department that in view of the expression \"So far as may be\" in Section

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for the department that in view of the expression "So far as may be" in Section

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

reassessment order was passed with variation, modification, altercation of the recorded reasons which is impermissible under the law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,12,50,000 treating the non-refundable grant received by the Assessee from PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV, Netherlands ('Services

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Act is cancelled on this ground. In view of the conclusion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is invalid we are of the view that the others issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal do not require any consideration. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Since we have quashed initiation

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Act is cancelled on this ground. In view of the conclusion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is invalid we are of the view that the others issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal do not require any consideration. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Since we have quashed initiation

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Act is cancelled on this ground. In view of the conclusion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is invalid we are of the view that the others issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal do not require any consideration. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Since we have quashed initiation

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 of the Act is cancelled on this ground. In view of the conclusion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings is invalid we are of the view that the others issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal do not require any consideration. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Since we have quashed initiation

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s first and foremost ground pressed during the course of hearing challenges correctness of validity of the impugned re-assessment framed on 23.03.2015 making the disallowance / addition in issue. This assessment order suggests in para

LATE RAM KISHAN MALL, L/H SHRI MAN MOHAN MALL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2004-05

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from five days delay in filing. The assessee’s legal heir has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit which is not disputed at the Revenue’s behest

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

reassessment notice for the A.Y.2016-17 was to be dealt as under :- Fresh notice u/s. 148 can be issued with approval of the specified authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of New Section 149 since AY 2016-17 is within the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Specified authority u/s.151

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

158 days. A separate application of condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that after receipt of the impugned order of the Pr. CIT, the assessee, through its director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, immediately approached one Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd Accountant, for filing

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). These appeals of the assessee arise out of the order of the Learned CITA in the following manner:- Appeal No. 26/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated 25.7.2012 for Asst Year 2003-04 Appeal No. 27/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated 25.7.2012 for Asst Year 2004-05 Appeal No. 28/CIT(A)/Slg/10-11 dated

M/S WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganesh

147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2006-07 vide his order dated 18.11.2011. 2. We find that the assessee has raised two additional grounds before us vide Additional Ground no.7 and 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that Additional Ground no.7

AGRO SERVICE SYNDICATE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(3)), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Agro Service Syndicate V/S. Ito, Ward-29(3), C/O A.K.Dutta & Co. Room Aaykar Bhavan No. 207, 2, Church Lane, (Dakshin), 2, Kolkata-01 Gariahat Road (S), [Pan No.Aaffa 3558 C] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 57,20,682/- to the income of the assessee and the total income was enhanced to an amount of Rs. 63,44,100/- 4. The assessee filed an application to the Ld. CIT for revision u/s 264 of the Act on dated 12-12-2011against the assessment order passed

ARYA ROADWAYS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 151A r.w.s. notifications issued there under, thereby vitiating the reassessment order. ITA No(s). 3/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2011-12 Arya Roadways Company Pvt. Ltd. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the re-assessment order is vitiated in law inasmuch as there was absolutely no independent application of mind and no independent enquiry

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore

SUMATI KUMAR LUNIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 457/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sumati Kumar Lunia Vs. I.T.O Ward 36(4), Kolkata Pan: Aavpl 7736 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings on that item will not be "Information" for re-opening. The matter has been elucidated and explained in detail as - Information proper - At the time of reopening, assessing officer is not required to establish escapement of income. Sri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 221 ITR 538&Central Provinces Manganese

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

reassess the company's\nincome, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the\ncompany as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same\nand on the language of section 115J, the view taken by the Tribunal was\ncorrect and the High Court had erred in reversing the said view of Tribunal.\nTherefore