PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. PRADIP KUMAR JAJODIA HUF

Appeal is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court at

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

delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application, IA NO: GA/1/2025, is allowed. We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. 2 The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are as hereunder : “a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. PRADIP KUMAR JAJODIA HUF

Appeal is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court at

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

delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application, IA NO: GA/1/2025, is allowed. We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are as hereunder : 2 “a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. PRADIP KUMAR JAJODIA HUF

Appeal is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court at

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

delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application, IA NO: GA/1/2025, is allowed. We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are as hereunder : 2 “a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. TANUJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 14Th July, 2025.

reopening of the case, whereas the assessing officer after making due examination of the information received from the Investigation Wing, found that the transaction of shares in the penny stock of S. V. Electric, previously known as M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure and Telecom Services Pvt. Ltd., as not genuine, which ultimately led to generation of bogus Long Term capital Loss

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 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 order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. JAYASHREE JAYAKAR MOHANKAR

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 25Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv…For The Appellant. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Mr. M. Kejriwal, Advs….For Respondent. Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court : There Is A Delay Of 757 Days In Filing The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Relevant Dates We Find That The Appellant/Revenue Be Entitled To The Benefit Of The Order Passed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Extending The Period Of Limitation For Preferring Appeals Under Various Statutes. For Such Reason The Application Is Allowed & The Delay Is Condoned.

delay is condoned. ITAT/74/2022 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 10.1.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.37/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2005-06. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GANESH STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 22Nd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. The appellant/revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal by which the order passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 3 24.8.2023 was set aside. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring the total income of rupees Nil. The return was processed under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

condone the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, IA No.GA/1/2016 (Old No.GA/3451/2016) is allowed. ITAT/420/2016: 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 20th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “A” Bench, Kolkata

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LTD.

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application IA No: GA/1/2023 is allowed. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 3rd December, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1005/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S USHA POLYCHEM INDIA PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/261/2022 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 25th August, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA 2 No.115/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. GA No. 01 of 2020 is allowed. 3. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Act is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal), dated 20.07.2018 in ITA No. 1907/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2001-2002. ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOSCON LEATHER PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 23Rd April, 2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application GA 1/2025 is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.822/Kol/2023 for the assessment year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAHUL PANDEY

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application being IA No. GA/1/2025 is allowed and disposed of. 5. Challenging the orders dated 14th December, 2023 and 21st October, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 516/Kol/2021 and M.A. No. 21/Kol/2024 respectively for the assessment year 2012-13, the instant appeal

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been