PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

capital of the claimant company] in the Claimant Company free from all or any encumbrances to the Claimant No 2, BulakidasBhaiya or his nominees at the rate of Rs. 80/- per share. The details of the shareholdings to be sold are set out hereunder: Name of Shareholder Number of Shares held Percentage Gopal Das Bagri 88,944 3.01% Mrs. Rama

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

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

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

capital gain and claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer further noted that the assessee had made sale/purchase of shares through a stock broker. A communication under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said share broker for verification and confirmation of the transactions regarding sale and purchase of shares and reply

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on proper interpretation of Section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees liability to pay the creditors had not cease and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making an addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents