PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIGHT COMMODEAL PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.96/Kol/2024 dated 24.06.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 8Th January, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- It Appears That There Is A Delay Of 112 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given By The Appellant Department For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. This Appeal By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax, 1961 Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 6, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No. 495/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration;- (A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law By Quashing The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Had

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 is directed against the order dated March 6, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 495/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. M/S SAGAR FINTRADE PVT. LTD.(NOW MERGED WITH M/S. LUCKY HOLDING PRIVATE LTD )

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

131 of 2021 Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Adv. Mr. Aniket Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nitu Singh, Adv. R Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : 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 “B” Bench, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. M/S. CANTON VINIMAY PVT LTD(NOW M/S. LUCKY HOLDINGS PVT LTD)

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

131 of 2021 Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Adv. Mr. Aniket Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nitu Singh, Adv. R Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : 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 “B” Bench, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CANTON VINIMAY PVT LTD

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

131 of 2021 Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Adv. Mr. Aniket Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nitu Singh, Adv. R Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : 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 “B” Bench, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAVITRA TREXIM PVT LTD

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

131 of 2021 Mr. Ganesh N. Jajodia, Adv. Mr. Aniket Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nitu Singh, Adv. R Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : 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 “B” Bench, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. TAPAN KANTI ROY

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

delay is condoned. The application being GA 1 of 2025 is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the quantum of tax effect in the above appeal is Rs.60,74,381/- which is below the monetary limit as prescribed by the CBDT’s Circular being No.5/2024 F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 15th March, 2024 but as the case

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 1 KOLKATA vs. RAINBOW VINCOM PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : January 15, 2025. Appearance :

delay has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application is allowed. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/456/Kol/2023 for the assessment year

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. USHA MARTIN TELEMATIC LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of on

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

delay of 62 days in the filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. 2 Re.: IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/1504/2017) in ITAT 183 of 2017 This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) and is directed against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income

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-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH 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

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 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-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 ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH 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

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