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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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

32 of 150 proof and upon whom the burden lay qua Section 68 of the Act. In the cases on hand, the assessee has not discharged the burden which has been cast upon them which was rightly noted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) but erroneously reversed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decision

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 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ZULU MERCHANDISE PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed the order passed by

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

32 share broking entities who had accepted that they were actively involved in bogus LTCG/STCL fraud. 12. The trade pattern of the shares followed a “bell shaped”, the company which had hardly any business activities, splitting of share took place after which price of the shares on the exchange went down automatically in proportion with the ratio of split

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

32, article 132, article 133, article 136 or article 137 or by the High Court under article 226 or article 227 of the Constitution.” Income Tax Act, 1961 “2. Definitions. … 9 (24) “income” includes– [(xviii) assistance in the form of subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became