DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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]

239 (Kerala HC) took note of the fact [like in the present assessee’s case], that assessee (Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd.) informed the AO that the return originally filed could be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter, no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 14.03.2019 u/s. 148 and that the\nmandatory approval of the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of\nincome tax as required to be obtained u/s. 151 of the act is invalid.\n(b) That the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of income tax has not\napplied his mind while granting

ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EPKON ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Mrs. Madhumita Roy, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1425/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito, Ward 41(2), Kolkata..............................…………………………..............................Appellant 4Th Floor, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. M/S. Epkon Associates.....................……....................................................................Respondent 10/2, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 067 [Pan: Aabfe 8374 Q] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 19, Kolkata Dated 05.03.2014 & In The Solitary Ground Raised Therein, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Cancelling The Assessment Made By The A.O. Under Section 143(3) / 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding The Same To Be Invalid.

239 (SC), it was held that – ‘second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding u/s 147.  In the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs ITO (1978) reported in 114 ITR 404 (AP), it was held that – ‘income tax department cannot be permitted

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA vs. TURTLE LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 145A has been followed or not? If so, the impact of such adjustments to the profits of the business. 10 Turtle Ltd. AY: 2012-13 (iv) Please furnish the working sheet in respect of valuation of closing stock. The cost price of the goods the direct expenses relating to such goods may be furnished.” 18. Further

DCIT,CIR-11, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 147 being a clear case of change of opinion which was not permissible in law and therefore the order passed u/s 147 deserves to be quashed end declared ab initio void. 6. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India limited 320 ITR 561 (SC) wherein

BIG BOSS FOODS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR. 1, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

239 CTR (Delhi) 65 Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 398/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd. vi) German Remedies Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 285 INCOME TAX RETURN 26 vii) Asteriods Trading and Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bombay) In all the decisions it has been held that there being no new material

MATHLETICS LLP FORMERLY MATHLETICS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Mathletics Llp Formerly Ito, Ward-9(1), Mathletics (P) Ltd. Kolkata C/O. P.K. Himmatsinghka, 41 Vs. B.B. Ganguly Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700012. Pan: Aaxfm 4704 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Kumar Himmatsinghka, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104812839(1) Dated 21.12.2022 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

section 147 mandates to assess the income for which notice is issued u/s 148 and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped, which comes to the notice of AO subsequently in the course of reassessment proceedings. In view of this provision, it was submitted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 6 Mathletics LLP Formerly Mathletics

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.

147 notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section 2 of section 148, the prerequisite is there should be a valid notice. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the natice was held to be not sustainable. If that be so, the assessing officer cannot be stated to be empowered

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-42,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SWATI INTERNATIONAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

reassessment made by the AO under section 147/144 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that reopening of assessment under section 147 by the AO was ultra vires and bad in law. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal to defend the order made by the AO. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of several notices

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUJRAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-12, -Versus- M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg 6225 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016. Order

239 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "having second thoughts on the same material, and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during original assessment do not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147" 5.1.5 In view of the facts of the case and the emerging legal position, I am of the considered view that

GAUTAM CHAND KANKARIA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

147 on 23.12.2019 without making any further addition. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to examine the following points during the reassessment proceedings: On verification of the return submitted by the assessee for the A.Y 2013-14 it was found that the assessee has shown income from two separate businesses, i.e. 1) M/s. Graben Indian

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 3(1) C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9934G Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as the consequent assessment framed. M/s Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has challenged the issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act and also the assessment framed u/s.147/143

M/S. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment u/s.147 of the Act based\non an invalid notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act dated\n15.01.2024.\n2.1. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under\nconsideration on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of\nRs.17,25,39,330/- under normal provision

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

239\nNirmal Dey\n5,462,047\n2,831.966\n4,282.675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108:359\n1,220,306\n18.298.469\nRajendra Bhalixia\n5.462,047\n2,831,966\n4,282,675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108.339\n1,220,506\n18.037,906\nSunder Bhalotia\n5.0-43,381\n3:086,448\n4,282,675\n1,878,481\n1.445.927

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

239\nNirmal Dey\n5,462,047\n2,831.966\n4,282.675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108:359\n1,220,306\n18.298.469\nRajendra Bhalixia\n5.462,047\n2,831,966\n4,282,675\n1,878,484\n1,445.927\n807,941\n108.339\n1,220,506\n18.037,906\nSunder Bhalotia\n5.0-43,381\n3:086,448\n4,282,675\n1,878,481\n1.445.927

TCG LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

147 were initiated for AY 2017-18 on the basis of information received from DDIT(I & CI) regarding receipt of foreign remittance / foreign amount of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued in response to the same the assessee filed income tax return declaring total income of Rs. 13,78,01,720/-. The AO after disposing

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication