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

3 South praying for eviction of the respondent herein being the tenant defendant in the title suit on the ground of default in payment of rent and requirement in respect of the suit property comprising of two bed rooms, a separate portion of veranda attached thereto along with kitchen, dining space, bath cum privy having facility of electricity and water

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING vs. SIGNIFY HOLDING B V

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 6Th May, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …For Appellant

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned Tribunal against the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated December 22, 2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 passed against a draft assessment order under Section 144C

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

condoned. The Review application being RVW 2 of 2022 be heard on merits. 10. The office is directed to register the review application. 11. CAN 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. RVW 2 of 2022 1. The present review application arises out of the judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 The review has been assigned

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

13. So far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the agreement was prior to the insertion of Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act and therefore the disqualification under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule to the Act shall not be applicable and that once an arbitrator

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 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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 21st June, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, in ITA Nos.160 & 161/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “(a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ARMAN ADVISORY PVT LTD

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 : Mr. Vipul Kundulia, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court: It Appears That There Is A Delay Of 342 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Saumitra Chowdhury, Mr. Avra Mazumder, Learned Advocates Appearing For The Respondent. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Filed With The Condone Delay Petition & The Delay Is Condoned. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.

delay is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, (the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2 315/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 11Th March, 2024 Appearance : M S. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debayan Dutta, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Revenue & Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent Assessee. There Is A Delay Of 59 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given By The Appellant Department For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Condone Delay Petition Is Allowed & Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A No.255/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. M/S PHALGUNI ENCLAVE PVT LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For Appellant Mr. S. Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. N. Mittal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- It Appears That There Is A Delay Of Twenty Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condone Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss) A No. 24/Kol/2021 & Co 05/Kol/2022 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12.

condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (the Tribunal) in IT(SS) A No. 24/Kol/2021 and CO 05/Kol/2022 relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2 The revenue

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RASHMI METALIKS LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 7Th March, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv.

condonation of delay appears to be an elaborate affidavit, all that is manifest from such affidavit is absolute bureaucratic approach by the Income tax department leading to belatedly filing of the appeal. Though the affidavit seeks to give certain explanation, we find several loopholes in the affidavit and substantial number of days of delay remains unexplained, more particularly

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

3 The second issue which convinced us to exercise discretion is the fact that another appeal filed by the assessee arising of the same order passed by the Tribunal is pending before this Court in ITA 21/2015. Thus, for the above reasons, the delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider

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

3 The second issue which convinced us to exercise discretion is the fact that another appeal filed by the assessee arising of the same order passed by the Tribunal is pending before this Court in ITA 21/2015. Thus, for the above reasons, the delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider

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

3 The second issue which convinced us to exercise discretion is the fact that another appeal filed by the assessee arising of the same order passed by the Tribunal is pending before this Court in ITA 21/2015. Thus, for the above reasons, the delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider

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

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

3 The second issue which convinced us to exercise discretion is the fact that another appeal filed by the assessee arising of the same order passed by the Tribunal is pending before this Court in ITA 21/2015. Thus, for the above reasons, the delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider

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.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 19.2.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1045/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “1. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error

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

13 KOLKATA VS RAHUL PANDEY BEFORE: The Hon’ble CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) SOUMEN SEN The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 18th September, 2025. APPEARANCE : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari, Adv. …for the appellant. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. There is a delay

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

13) of the Act which defines the term “business”. Elaborate reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Company Versus CIT 35 to explain as to how the adventure is in the nature of trade. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the test

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

13) of the Act which defines the term “business”. Elaborate reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Company Versus CIT 35 to explain as to how the adventure is in the nature of trade. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the test