PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

Justice Supratim Bhattacharya S. A. 62 of 2020 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 Debabrata Nath & Anr. Versus Sri Amarnath Sinha For the appellants : Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharjee Mr. Debashis Banerjee For the respondent : Mr. Atarup Banerjee Mr. Bapin Baidya Heard On : 29.01.2024 Judgment Delivered On : 29.02.2024 Supratim Bhattacharya, J.: CAN 1 of 2023 1. The application being

M/S SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

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

justice and keeping in mind that the service of the review applicant is involved we are inclined to condone the delay and hear out the review on merits. That apart and in any event, the review applicant has cited a case reported in 2024 (1) SCC 175 (Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). At the stage of condonation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 10Th January, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ..For Appellant The Court: We Have Heard Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For Appellant Revenue. The Respondent Has Been Served & An Affidavit Of Service Has Been Filed But None Appears For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 44 Days In Filing The Appeal & We Have Perused The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Causes Were Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.5.2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/480/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA DATE : 10TH January, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ..for appellant The Court: We have heard Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for appellant revenue. The respondent has been served and an affidavit of service has been filed but none appears for the respondent. There is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XII, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ MURARKA

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

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 24th November, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 21st May, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1239/Kol/2003 and ITA No.1180/Kol/2003 for the assessment year 1998-99. The appeal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BROLLY DEALCOM LLP

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/48/2021) stands dismissed

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

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16th June, 2022. The Court : Re: IA No.GA/1/2021: This appeal filed by the revenue is time barred. There is delay of 603 days in filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the delay has not been explained. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the department

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA vs. CEMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD.

The appeal is dismissed on the ground of low

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 10th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …for Appellant The Court : We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. Respondent has been served but has not entered appearance. There is a delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

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

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT NO: 60 OF 2020 Arising out of IA NO: GA 2 OF 2020 With ITAT NO: 60 OF 2020 Arising out of IA NO: GA 1 OF 2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4, KOLKATA VS. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD. For the appellant: Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. For the respondent

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

nature of an adventure and to explain this concept, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in ITO, “A” Ward, 68 ITA No. 270 of 1999 69 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 70 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 71 2008 4 SCC 144 72 1967 AIR 295 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page