PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

delay having been condoned by the Court, the appeal should therefore be deemed to have been filed within the time allowed by law. Thus, by applying the deeming fiction to the facts of the case, we have to necessarily hold that the appeal filed by the revenue before this Court for all purposes should be treated to have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

delay having been condoned by the Court, the appeal should therefore be deemed to have been filed within the time allowed by law. Thus, by applying the deeming fiction to the facts of the case, we have to necessarily hold that the appeal filed by the revenue before this Court for all purposes should be treated to have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABA EARTHLINE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St August, 2022. Appearance:-

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/111/2021 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 9th November, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No. 1141/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LTD

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside

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

condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITAT No. 50/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2012-13. The respondent has raised the following substantial question of law :- “Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA II, KOLKATA vs. NAGREEKA EXPORTS

The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd February, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.

condonation of delay is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `D’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos.604 and 605/Kol/2003 and C.O. Nos.55 and 56/Kol/2003 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Revenue

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

24 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within time. 2 Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2022) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 27, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent. Ga/1/2022 The Court :- We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 511 Days In Filing The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Application We Are Satisfied That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. Accordingly, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed.

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/153/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated September 24

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 GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

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

24 & 25 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/1/2021 ITAT 66/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IA NO.GA/2/2021 ITAT 66/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra

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 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

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

24 Grounds 2, 8, and 15 of the SEVENTH SCHEDULE of the Act of 1996 55. The preliminary question in the application under Section 36(1) and Section 34 is whether by reason of appearing for M/s. SSSMIL on several occasions in APD no. 252 of 2015, the Learned Arbitrator, rendered himself ineligible to continue the arbitral proceedings

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/192/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 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 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, 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