PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 1 KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA

In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned

Bench: :

20 of 2021. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …for the respondents. The Court : There is a delay of 502 days in filing the appeal being ITAT/21/2021. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in 2 support of the condone delay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application

PR. CIT CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. SIDHANT GUPTA

In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned

Bench: :

20 of 2021. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …for the respondents. The Court : There is a delay of 502 days in filing the appeal being ITAT/21/2021. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in 2 support of the condone delay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4,KOLKATA vs. M/S. TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LTD

In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned

Bench: :

20 of 2021. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …for the respondents. The Court : There is a delay of 502 days in filing the appeal being ITAT/21/2021. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in 2 support of the condone delay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ASHOK KUMAR REDH HUF

The appeal is allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 05, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Appellant.

condonation of delay being GA 1 of 2022 stands allowed. 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 26th June, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A No.2331 and (Kol) of 2018 (Tribunal) for the assessment year

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. MINTU DAS

Accordingly, the stay petition (GA/2/2025) is also dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

delay is condoned. IA NO:GA/1/2025 is allowed. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has suggested the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in 2 quashing the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SRI RAHUL SARAF

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : September 20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent

20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …for respondent The Court :- We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It appears there

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. SILCHAR FOOD PROCESSING P LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : September 20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent

20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …for respondent The Court :- We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It appears there

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-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-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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOL-IV , KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD .

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. A.K. De, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th January, 2006 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1746(Cal) Of 1998 For The Assessment Year 1995- 96. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Directing The Assessing

Section 80 HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repair of Glass Furnaces installed in the Kalwa Light Factory falls in the category of current repairs and thereby directing

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

20, 2015 ? (b) Whether the Tribunal failed to consider that an enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer on the issue of share capital and during such enquiry, all the materials documents were placed before the Assessing Officer and as such, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot direct for an enquiry on the same issue by holding that enquiry conducted

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 ,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

20. It is submitted that the four basic principles of law as has been consistently adopted by courts are: (i) The person who alleges should prove, (ii) All adverse material is required to be supplied to the person against whom the allegations is made, (iii) No findings can be recorded on surmises and conjectures, (iv) Adverse action can be initiated

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

20. It is submitted that the four basic principles of law as has been consistently adopted by courts are: (i) The person who alleges should prove, (ii) All adverse material is required to be supplied to the person against whom the allegations is made, (iii) No findings can be recorded on surmises and conjectures, (iv) Adverse action can be initiated

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

20. It is submitted that the four basic principles of law as has been consistently adopted by courts are: (i) The person who alleges should prove, (ii) All adverse material is required to be supplied to the person against whom the allegations is made, (iii) No findings can be recorded on surmises and conjectures, (iv) Adverse action can be initiated

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

20. It is submitted that the four basic principles of law as has been consistently adopted by courts are: (i) The person who alleges should prove, (ii) All adverse material is required to be supplied to the person against whom the allegations is made, (iii) No findings can be recorded on surmises and conjectures, (iv) Adverse action can be initiated