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

1. There is a delay of 627 days in filing this appeal and the revenue has filed GA 01 of 2020 to condone the delay. The respondent assessees have filed their affidavit-in-opposition objecting to the prayer for condonation. Reply affidavit has been filed by appellant revenue to the averments set out in the affidavit-in-opposition. After elaborately

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

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

3) and Section 153A(1). 7 “The counsel appearing for the Department relied on sections 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act read with Circular No. 9 of 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to contend that the appellant ought to have made an application for condonation of delay

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

B. D. Bhaiya or "his companies" as alleged. Copies of the orders evidencing the fact that Mr. JishnuSaha, senior advocate had appeared for and behalf SSSMIL as counsel and copies of orders evidencing the Mr. JishnuSaha, Learned Advocate appearing in various other matters with the learned Arbitrator during the pendency of arbitral proceeding are annexed hereto and collectively marked

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

condone the delay cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside. 11. In so far as the rejection order passed in respect of the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, he would submit that since the respondent no.2 has proceeded to treat the refund of excess salary as a deduction from the salary on an erroneous premise

CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA - CHARITABALE TRUST

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1)(b) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the concerned Commissioner/Director is not required to examine the question 7 whether the Trust has actually commenced and has, in fact, carried on charitable activities ?” and answered this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Similar view was also taken by the Allahabad High Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1)(b) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the concerned Commissioner/Director is not required to examine the question 7 whether the Trust has actually commenced and has, in fact, carried on charitable activities ?” and answered this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Similar view was also taken by the Allahabad High Court

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

condoned. The Review application being RVW 2 of 2022 be heard on merits. 10. The office is directed to register the review application. 11. CAN 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. RVW 2 of 2022 1. The present review application arises out of the judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 The review has been assigned

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

1 of 2023 is disposed of. 4. Now this Court shall take into consideration the action that set in motion the instant dispute arose in the year 1995 with the institution of a suit being Title Suit No. 301431 of 1995 instituted before the Ld. Civil Judge Junior Division at Alipore Dist. 24-Parganas, South. 5. Background facts: Proceeding before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION

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 : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ..For Appellant The Court: We Have Heard Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For Appellant Revenue. The Respondent Has Been Served & An Affidavit Of Service Has Been Filed But None Appears For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 44 Days In Filing The Appeal & We Have Perused The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Causes Were Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.5.2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/480/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

1) on account of denying exemption under Section 11 of the said Act amounting to Rs.3,97,02,996/- despite the fact that the statutory requirement of filing the form No. 10B on or before the filing of return of income was not fulfilled by the assessee trust? b) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal

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 :-

B of the Declaration. The assessee was put on notice and the affidavit and the application for condonation of delay along with the memorandum of grounds were served on the assessee and soon after receipt of the same on 12th January, 2021 a revised declaration under the VSV was filed mentioning the relevant details. On 21st January, 2021 delay

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 :-

B of the Declaration. The assessee was put on notice and the affidavit and the application for condonation of delay along with the memorandum of grounds were served on the assessee and soon after receipt of the same on 12th January, 2021 a revised declaration under the VSV was filed mentioning the relevant details. On 21st January, 2021 delay

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata –1 under Section 263 of the Act was just and proper, more so when the exercise of jurisdiction under the said provision was done for the second 3 time. The learned Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

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 is allowed and disposed of. ITAT 177 of 2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 20th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/954/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue

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 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 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-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH 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. SURAJ SAHANA

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. GITESH 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