PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOL vs. RAMAKANT BERIWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 of Rs.74,24,380/- to tax under the IDS and paid the taxes thereon and this fact was brought to the notice of the PCIT in pursuance of the show cause notice issued under Section 263

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

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

capital gain, set off against brought-forward losses from AY 2012-13, alongside allowing a Rs.96,65,106/- losses on disposal of property, plant and equipment. 3. The Principal CIT invoked Section 263

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 3, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 25Th August, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury, Adv. Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 28, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata, In I.T.A No.775/Kol/2015 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Erred In Quashing The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax –3, Kolkata Passed

Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper enquiry. We need not labour much to decide this issue as the learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the factual position and brought out as to how the Assessing Officer had conducted an enquiry into the aspect as to how the amount received

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. RITIN LAKHMANI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respective Parties. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Orders Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Various Assessment Years. The Details Of The Appeal Numbers, Case Number Before The Learned Tribunal & The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Set Out In A Tabulated Form Hereunder : Sl. No. Itat No. Date Of Order Assessment Year 1.

Gain [LTGC] to claim exemption under section 10[38] of the Act ? ii] Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law while allowing the assessee’s appeal of claim of exemption under section 10[38] without holding that the official transaction of purchase and sale of shares of penny stock companies namely Baviscon Vincom Pvt. Ltd. later amalgamated with Unno

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. RAVISH LAKHMANI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respective Parties. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Orders Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Various Assessment Years. The Details Of The Appeal Numbers, Case Number Before The Learned Tribunal & The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Set Out In A Tabulated Form Hereunder : Sl. No. Itat No. Date Of Order Assessment Year 1.

Gain [LTGC] to claim exemption under section 10[38] of the Act ? ii] Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law while allowing the assessee’s appeal of claim of exemption under section 10[38] without holding that the official transaction of purchase and sale of shares of penny stock companies namely Baviscon Vincom Pvt. Ltd. later amalgamated with Unno

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

263 of the Act two conditions have to be specified simultaneously, namely, the order sought to be revised should be shown to be erroneous and it should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner