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

5 6. It would transpire from the records that the company had thereafter upon considering the matter on the basis of the resolution taken by the Board Members on 13th November, 2019 by letter in writing dated 2nd December, 2019 called upon the petitioner to refund the excess remuneration paid to him for the financial years

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act) for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application being RVW 2 of 2022. The Review Application arises out of judgment and order dated 19th August, 2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 by which a judicial review in the form of a writ petition

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 :-

5 which was admittedly issued in favour of the assessee on 27th January, 2021. The second issue would be whether the revenue can now contend that Circular dated 4th December, 2020 covers cases only when the appeals are filed with an application for condonation of delay between 1st April, 2019 and 31st January, 2020 and the appeal in the assessee

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 :-

5 which was admittedly issued in favour of the assessee on 27th January, 2021. The second issue would be whether the revenue can now contend that Circular dated 4th December, 2020 covers cases only when the appeals are filed with an application for condonation of delay between 1st April, 2019 and 31st January, 2020 and the appeal in the assessee

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. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated January 31, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue Duly Assisted By Mr. Asok

condonation of delay is disposed of. ITAT/108/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 263A of the Income Tax Act, (the Act) is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) dated 26th September, 2018 in ITAT/569/Kol/2015 for the assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHAW

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

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without holding that the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of penny stock companies was an adventure in nature of trade, thus, same was to be taxed as business income? K. Whether the order of the Learned Tribunal as perverse in overlooking that it is the duty of the Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/113/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2232/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. RITIN LAKHMANI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respective Parties. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Orders Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Various Assessment Years. The Details Of The Appeal Numbers, Case Number Before The Learned Tribunal & The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Set Out In A Tabulated Form Hereunder : Sl. No. Itat No. Date Of Order Assessment Year 1.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in various assessment years. The details of the appeal numbers, case number before the learned Tribunal and the assessment year under consideration

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. RAVISH LAKHMANI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respective Parties. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Orders Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Various Assessment Years. The Details Of The Appeal Numbers, Case Number Before The Learned Tribunal & The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Set Out In A Tabulated Form Hereunder : Sl. No. Itat No. Date Of Order Assessment Year 1.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in various assessment years. The details of the appeal numbers, case number before the learned Tribunal and the assessment year under consideration

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. PRAVASH KUMAR LAKMANI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respective Parties. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Orders Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In Various Assessment Years. The Details Of The Appeal Numbers, Case Number Before The Learned Tribunal & The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Set Out In A Tabulated Form Hereunder : Sl. No. Itat No. Date Of Order Assessment Year 1.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. These appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in various assessment years. The details of the appeal numbers, case number before the learned Tribunal and the assessment year under consideration

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL UNITED CREDIT BELANI HOUSING LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

delay has already been condoned, the application being IA NO: GA/1/2018 (Old No:GA/1412/2018) is allowed. ITAT/188/2018 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 31st July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata in ITA 155/Kol./2017

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

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 ,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

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-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, 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

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, 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

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