LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

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

condonation of delay is allowed. Re.: ITAT No.339 of 2017 This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 725/Kol/2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UDAIPUR vs. EMOTE WEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 1St July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Sanjay Dixit, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv. ..For Respondent

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.245/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2 The revenue has raised

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 CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 13Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Ajay Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Hiranyak Gangopadhyay, Adv. …For Respondent

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/252/2022 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act) is directed against the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2455/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2008-2009. The revenue has raised following substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GANESH STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 22Nd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. The appellant/revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal by which the order passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 3 24.8.2023 was set aside. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring the total income of rupees Nil. The return was processed under

OLYMPUS SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. & ANR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 2 & ANR

The appeal is allowed and the stay

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

147. 8. For that the Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Ld. A.O. as to how the fresh assessment should be framed by him.” From the above grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the tribunal, we find that the first ground urged before the tribunal is that the order passed by the PCIT under Section

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application being IA No. GA/1/2025 is allowed and disposed of. 5. Challenging the orders dated 14th December, 2023 and 21st October, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 516/Kol/2021 and M.A. No. 21/Kol/2024 respectively for the assessment year 2012-13, the instant appeal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LTD.

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application IA No: GA/1/2023 is allowed. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 3rd December, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1005/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE TRADE ASSOCIATES PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed and the assessment

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 5Th May, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Appellants Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent

condone the delay in filing the appeal. GA/1/2025 is allowed. As could be seen from the Memorandum of Appeal as well as the grounds raised in the writ petition, the appellants did not question the order passed under Section 148A(d) as well as the assessment order under Section 147

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-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-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 ,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, 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-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

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, 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