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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under 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

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-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

capital loss of Rs. 2,79,36,337/- against the short term gain computed on depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

1. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated May 10, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1068/Kol/2017 & 1222/Kol/2017, both relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. Two appeals have been filed before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Despite full disclosure of facts regarding loans given by the assessee to its subsidiary companies and source of funds, supported by documentary evidences, the assessing officer made addition in the income of the assessee on the presumption that the loan was given out of the borrowed capital by the assessee

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