PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata –1 under Section 263 of the Act was just and proper, more so when the exercise of jurisdiction under the said provision was done for the second 3 time. The learned Tribunal

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 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 :-

143(3) read with Section 115 WE(3). Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-VI), Kolkata (CIT). By order dated 10th April, 2019 the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal was allowed by order dated 2nd August

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 :-

143(3) read with Section 115 WE(3). Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-VI), Kolkata (CIT). By order dated 10th April, 2019 the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal was allowed by order dated 2nd August

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ANJANIPUTRA NIRMAN PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 2Nd September, 2025

3 There is a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal. As the explanation offered by the appellant/department is satisfactory, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application, IA NO: GA/1/2024, is allowed. The revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 8th December, 2023 by which the appeal filed by the assessee

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

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

condonation of delay) under Section 119(2)(b). However, the assessee chose not to avail this remedy. We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. The revenue is before us challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the revenue’s appeal and allowing

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 :

143(1) on account of denying exemption under Section 11 of the said Act amounting to Rs.3,97,02,996/- despite the fact that the statutory requirement of filing the form No. 10B on or before the filing of return of income was not fulfilled by the assessee trust? b) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

condone delay application, GA 1 of 2025, is allowed. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate authority namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal - 4), Kolkata [CIT(A)] and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider whether addition is required to be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S TECHNO TRACOM PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Anil Dugar, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel For The Respondent & Perused The Averments Set Out In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Application For Condonation. We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 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 18th April, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.205/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised

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-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR 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-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

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 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-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 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 ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAJESH 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 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-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