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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PR CIT 9 KOLKATA vs. GIRISH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SILIGURI vs. NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOPAL PRASAD TIKMANI HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOL vs. SUNITA GOYAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S GIRISH TIKMANI HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NAND KISHORE AGARWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOL 5 vs. RANJIKA GUPTA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

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

143 (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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SILIGURI vs. NEETU AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

143 (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

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

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

143(3) of the Act by order dated December 31, 2007 accepted the long term capital gains which arose in respect of shares held as investments from the earlier years, he also accepted the short term capital gains to the extent the same related to shares held as investments from the earlier years. However, short term capital gains amounting

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

143(3) on March 8, 2021, at an assessed income of Rs.39,76,74,478/-. This included treating the gain of Rs.12,97,56,648/- from the sale of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank that was purchased in June 2012 and held for nearly six years before it was sold in March 2018 as long-term capital gain

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

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

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice