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

Section 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

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 271(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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA , HUF

Bench: :

271(1)(c) of the Act was defective inasmuch as irrelevant portions of the notice were not struck off and as such the assessee did not have proper opportunity to put forth their submission. In support of their submission, several decisions have been referred to by the assessee including decision of this Court. The learned Tribunal following the said decision

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

1) had been issued. 10. Bearing the above legal principles, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case qua the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal for allowing 7 the assessee’s appeal. As mentioned above, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the assessing officer has not formed an opinion and he has mechanically followed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. M/S B L TAK AND SONS HUF

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

1 o-7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/243/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA VS M/S B L TAK AND SONS HUF BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 9th June, 2025. Mr. Prithu Dudheria

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

1 and 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

1 and 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

1 and 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