M/S. GAYAN TRADERS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II

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

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

Section 10 of the Act by Finance No. 2 Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Further the tribunal failed to consider that the short term capital gains from shares held as investment could not be assessed as business income merely because the period of holding of the shares in such cases was somewhat short as compared to other investments. Thus

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. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. SRI SATYA NARAYAN SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit

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

2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee is stated to have produced the copy of the income tax returns, profit