KALI PADIP CHAUDHARI FOUNDATION vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. M/S MAA LILORI ISPAT PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For The Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated January 5, 021, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.1156/Kol./2019, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In

condonation of delay is allowed. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, there were four grounds, the first of which is with regard to the division of disallowance of Rs.59,45,541/- as was done by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) took note of the decision

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

condonation of delay stands disposed of. ITAT No. 96 of 2021 4. 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 15th January, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 707/Kol/2019 for the assessment year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1 KOLKATA vs. VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In view of the above, GA/1/2021 stands disposed of. ITAT/23/2021 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 30th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/1539/Kol/2017

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In view of the above, GA/1/2021 stands disposed of. ITAT/23/2021 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 30th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/1539/Kol/2017

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BALAKA VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 21St July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. 3 The assessee has preferred the appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) and also assailed the correctness of the penalty

PRINCIPAL CIT , CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA vs. BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 23, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. R K Murarka, Advocae Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Advocate …For Respondent The Court :- We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Assigned In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Application Regarding The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Condoned. The Application Stands Allowed.

delay is condoned. The application stands allowed. 2 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 22.09.2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos. 93 and 94/Kol/2017 relating to Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. The revenue

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. ANSHUMAN DROLIA

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

condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2022) stands allowed. 2 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 14th June, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.696/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SILIGURI vs. M/S MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed and substantial questions of law are

Bench: :

delay is condoned and the application being GA/1/2022 is allowed. 2 ITAT/159/2022 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 19th August, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 1820/Kol/2019 for the assessment year

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation

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

Penalty rather than the subject matter at hand. Reliance placed on the case of Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) to show that presumption can be drawn on the basis of immediate and relevant facts is contrary to law already settled by this Court in the case of Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju (supra) where it is held that “a reasonable expectation