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 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-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. 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th August, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Apellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. ….For Respondent

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 3rd August, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA/130/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S USHA POLYCHEM INDIA PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/261/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 25th August, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA 2 No.115/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

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, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

condone the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, IA No.GA/1/2016 (Old No.GA/3451/2016) is allowed. ITAT/420/2016: 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 20th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “A” Bench, Kolkata

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

delay is condoned. The assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under the National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 6th June, 2023 by which the Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31st December, 2008 under Section 143(3)/147/144 of the Act. The first issue which was noticed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. SMT SUMAN KOTHARI

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITAT/238/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue

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 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 ,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, 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 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, 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-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