PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SEVEN STAR STEELS LTD

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

Section 139(1). The proposition of company not existing at that point of time has a remedy in terms of filing application (for condonation of delay

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

delaying a decision on such application cannot midway turn around and decide not to pursue the challenge application, and then prefer an independent application under Section 14 of the Act before the Court, basically on the same ground raised in the former, urging that de jure inability of the arbitrator disqualifies him to continue proceedings. The learned Judge was right

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

1. This is an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S Y R TRADERS PVT LTD

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

1. Challenging the orders passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) in respect of the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-18 and 2018-19 all dated 29th March 2021, the instant writ petitions have been filed. To consider the scope of the challenge, it is necessary to note down

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

condonation of delay is made through Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed and as a 8 consequence to which the appeal is also dismissed the said Judgment and decree is appealable. 11. In this aspect it is to be taken into consideration that the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court was passed on 28.02.2017 and from

CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA - CHARITABALE TRUST

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1)(b) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the concerned Commissioner/Director is not required to examine the question 7 whether the Trust has actually commenced and has, in fact, carried on charitable activities ?” and answered this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Similar view was also taken by the Allahabad High Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1)(b) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the concerned Commissioner/Director is not required to examine the question 7 whether the Trust has actually commenced and has, in fact, carried on charitable activities ?” and answered this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Similar view was also taken by the Allahabad High Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

delay having been condoned by the Court, the appeal should therefore be deemed to have been filed within the time allowed by law. Thus, by applying the deeming fiction to the facts of the case, we have to necessarily hold that the appeal filed by the revenue before this Court for all purposes should be treated to have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

delay having been condoned by the Court, the appeal should therefore be deemed to have been filed within the time allowed by law. Thus, by applying the deeming fiction to the facts of the case, we have to necessarily hold that the appeal filed by the revenue before this Court for all purposes should be treated to have been

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 :

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

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 is allowed and disposed of. ITAT 177 of 2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 20th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/954/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), UNDER CIT-IV,KOL

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

condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directed against the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2413/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010. The assessee has raised the following substantial question

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed