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

120 days is not inordinate. Therefore, we will be very justified in exercising discretion in the matter to condone the delay. Two other factors which persuaded us to do so are that three appeals, namely, ITAT 105/2015, ITAT 107/2015 and ITAT 108/2015, appearing in the supplementary list today, were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated

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

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

120 days is not inordinate. Therefore, we will be very justified in exercising discretion in the matter to condone the delay. Two other factors which persuaded us to do so are that three appeals, namely, ITAT 105/2015, ITAT 107/2015 and ITAT 108/2015, appearing in the supplementary list today, were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

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

delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2017 [OLD No:GA/608/2017] stands disposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/58/2017 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 20.7.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DIC INDIA LIMITED

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 4, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/2084/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHIVAM DHATU UDYOG LTD

Accordingly, the application being IA No: GA/1/2023, is dismissed and

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th August, 2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court had kept the 2 application pending taking into consideration the plight of the learned standing Counsel who are appearing for the Department on account of non-settlement of their fee and expense bills. Time to time directions were issued and reports were submitted. Pursuant to the last order, the Commissioner

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAGHVENDRA MOHTA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th May, 2025.

delay has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application 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 8.4.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/2416/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue

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 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2022 The Court :- Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 202 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/164/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) was directed against the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Income Tax 2 Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 2110/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following

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

120. 23. Mr. Kohli alternatively argues that the aforesaid actions give rise to justifiable doubts, within the meaning of Section 12 (1), (2), and (5), as regards the independence and impartiality of the Learned Arbitrator, and hence the award is vitiated. He relied upon the following decisions:- a. ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. reported

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

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 -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

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 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

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-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 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

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-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

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-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

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