PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SETHIA OIL INDUSTRIES LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 12Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhradip Maity, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : - Heard Learned Counsel On Either Side. There Is A Delay Of 384 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Under Section 35G Of The Central Excise Act, Challenging The Order Passed By The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata Dated 17.12.2019. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Erred In Not Holding That Availing Credit By The Respondent Cannot Be Substantive Right Since The

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata dated 17.12.2019. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- (i) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not holding

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

2. There is a delay of 420 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the relevant dates, we find that the appellant/revenue would be entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation for filing appeals. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

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

2 appearing for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay of 324 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condone petition. Since we are inclined to take up the main appeal itself for hearing, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal was supported by a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner bearing the registration number of the said medical practitioner. It has also been contended that a certificate issued by a medical practitioner is generally taken into consideration until and unless there

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S Y R TRADERS PVT LTD

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

2) The [Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner] shall not of his 12 own motion revise any order under this section if the order has been made more than one year previously. (3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. EVENT DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Circuit Bench At Port Blair On 09-01-2025 & Thereafter The File Was Processed For Approval From The Department For Preferring The Appeal.

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. On a perusal of the said application, it appears that the order under appeal was passed on 11th November, 2024. The certified copy of the order was applied for on 24th December, 2024. There is no explanation as to why more than one and half

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LIMITED

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Circuit Bench At Port Blair On 09-01-2025 & Thereafter The File Was Processed For Approval From The Department For Preferring The Appeal.

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. On a perusal of the said application, it appears that the order under appeal was passed on 11th November, 2024. The certified copy of the order was applied for on 24th December, 2024. There is no explanation as to why more than one and half

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

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

2 There is a delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal. As the explanation offered is acceptable, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. This appeal is filed by the revenue under Section

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-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 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, 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. 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-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

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

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA 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 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, 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