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

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

KALI PADIP CHAUDHARI FOUNDATION vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), KOL-1

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Now, we move on to whether to consider the review applications. In the review applications we are required to consider as to whether the review applicant was able to point out an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Admittedly, the connected appeal arising

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHRI GANESH CEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 31St October 2022. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. Mr. Souvik Chandra, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Advocates For The Appellant & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Duly Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. Siddhertha Das & Mr. Souvik Chandra, Advocates For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 394 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Find That Substantial Period Of The Time Was During The Period Of Lockdown And, Therefor, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Application, Therefore, Stands Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/191/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), directed against the order dated 25th February, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA 2466/Kol/2018 for the assessment years 2012-2013. 2 The revenue has raised the following substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : 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 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

30,873/- on transfer of Government Securities after applying cost inflation Index on sale of Government Securities and holding he Government Securities are not bond and debentures for the purpose of 3rd proviso to Section 48 of the Act (4th Proviso after amendment) which is petently wrong and latently irregular ? 2 B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error

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

Section 263 of the Act to the petitioning assessee. In terms of the liberty granted, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the tribunal which on the date of filing was barred by 6 limitation, it was delayed by a period of 19 days. The learned tribunal took note of the direction issued by the learned Writ Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. FASTNER COMMODEAL PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

Bench: :

condoned the delay in filing Form 10IC relevant to the assessment year 2020-21 on fulfillment of certain conditions which are as hereunder :- 1. The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA

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

30, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/190/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The respondent has been served but none has appeared for the respondent. As the delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application

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

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 for the respondent. As the delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application

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

30, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/191/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2016-17. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The respondent has been served but none has appeared for the respondent. As the delay has been properly explained, the same stands condoned. Accordingly, the application

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

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-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-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 ,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