AKHILESH SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13/4 KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

28, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv. ..for the appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ….for the respondent. The Court: The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is at the behest of the assessee and directed against the order dated June 12, 2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench, Kolkata

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, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 890 & 891 [Kol] of 2019 for the assessment year 2009-2010. The revenue

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-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 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIGHT COMMODEAL PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

28, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. ...for the Appellant Ms. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Adv. ..for the Respondent THE COURT: Leave granted to the learned advocate for the respondent/assessee to file Vakalatanama in the department. There is a delay of 232 days in filing the appeal. As the explanation

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 ,KOLKATA -12 ,KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv… For The Appellant. Mr. Sohom Sen, Adv. ….For Respondent. Ga/1/2018 The Court : There Is A Delay Of 124 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Having Preferred The Appeal Within The Time. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned. The Application Is Allowed.

delay is condoned. The application is allowed. ITAT/175/2018 We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sohom Sen, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 11th August, 2017 passed by the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Been Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated December 23, 2021 Passed

28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant The Court :- We have heard learned standing Counsel for the appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria. Notice on the respondent has been served and the same has been returned with the postal endorsement “unclaimed” which is deemed to be proper service. We have perused affidavit filed in support of the petition and found

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE TRADE ASSOCIATES PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed and the assessment

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 5Th May, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Appellants Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent

Section 148A(d) of the Income 2 Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated March 28, 2023 and the consequential assessment order dated March 22, 2024. The learned Single Bench was of the opinion that the appellants should exhaust the appellate remedy available under the Act and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition. It has been recorded in the impugned order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria & Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed.

28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant The Court :- We have heard learned standing Counsel for the appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria and Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Notice on the respondent has been served and the same has returned with the postal endorsement “unclaimed” which is deemed to be proper service. We have perused

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M P KEDIA (HUF)

In the result, the connected application for stay IA

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application being IA No.GA/1/2021 is allowed. 2 Re: ITAT/84/2021: 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 15th March, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal

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 -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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under 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