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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act) for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application being RVW 2 of 2022. The Review Application arises out of judgment and order dated 19th August, 2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 by which a judicial review in the form of a writ petition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/113/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2232/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following

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

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

condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the appeal was considered by the tribunal. The appellant’s case was that as against the order passed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATA vs. INDIAN EX SERVICES LEAGUE WEST BENGAL

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 29Th September, 2023 Appearance : Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Prabir Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Bharat Ch. Simai, Adv. …For Respondent.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata “A” Bench (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 398/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue has raised the following substantial

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-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

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

condonation of delay stands disposed of. ITAT No. 96 of 2021 4. This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 707/Kol/2019 for the assessment year

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

19,816/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and accepting the fresh evidence of expenses without remanding the case to the Assessing officer which violates rules 46A of I.T. Rules 1962 ? F. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Learned CIT(A) for allowing the Education Cess

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMED TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. MR. ALTABUR RAHAMAN MOLLAH

The appeal stands disposed of

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

condone delays under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, The Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata denied substantial justice to the Department ? 2 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not rectifying the order passed earlier in favour of the assessee suo-moto, in view of the observations

ANIRUDH BHUWALKA vs. DY. COMMISSSONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(I) KOL AND ANR

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 31st January, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘SMC’ Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.513/Kol/2021 and ITA No.514/Kol/2021 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. We have

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 CIT , CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA vs. BRIJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 23, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. R K Murarka, Advocae Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Advocate …For Respondent The Court :- We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Assigned In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Application Regarding The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Condoned. The Application Stands Allowed.

delay is condoned. The application stands allowed. 2 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 22.09.2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos. 93 and 94/Kol/2017 relating to Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. The revenue

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOSCON LEATHER PRODUCTS PVT LTD

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 : 23Rd April, 2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application GA 1/2025 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 7th November, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.822/Kol/2023 for the assessment year

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

delaying a decision on such application cannot midway turn around and decide not to pursue the challenge application, and then prefer an independent application under Section 14 of the Act before the Court, basically on the same ground raised in the former, urging that de jure inability of the arbitrator disqualifies him to continue proceedings. The learned Judge was right

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. PRADIP KUMAR JAJODIA HUF

Appeal is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court at

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 30, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/190/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The respondent has been served but none has appeared

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 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