PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR HIRAWAT

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.

31 of 2020. Following the said decision, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay being GA 1 of 2022 stands allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section

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.

31 of 2020. Following the said decision, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay being GA 1 of 2022 stands allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. PREMLATA AGARWAL

Bench: :

31 OF 2020, the Court has elaborately considered an identical issue with regard to condonation of delay and the effect of the Circular issued by the CBDT. Thus following the above decision, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/98/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. SHYAM KUMAR AND SONS HUF

Bench: :

31 OF 2020, the Court has elaborately considered an identical issue with regard to condonation of delay and the effect of the Circular issued by the CBDT. Thus following the above decision, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/162/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

31 OF 2020, the Court has elaborately considered an identical issue with regard to condonation of delay and the effect of the Circular issued by the CBDT. 2 Thus following the above decision, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/113/2022 This appeal by the revenue under Section

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 31st January, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘SMC’ Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.513/Kol/2021 and ITA No.514/Kol/2021 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. We have

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

31, 2015, would be hit by sub-section (2) of section 263 of the said Act in the present case, as no order can be made under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the said Act, after expiry of 2 years from the end of the financial year, 2012-13, in which the order sought to be revised

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING vs. SIGNIFY HOLDING B V

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 6Th May, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …For Appellant

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned Tribunal against the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated December 22, 2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 passed against a draft assessment order under Section 144C

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 5,KOLKATA vs. SMT SUMAN KOTHARI

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITAT/148/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A[SMC]” Bench in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 the revenue has raised

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

31. By placing reliance on section 12(5) of the said Act and the Seventh Schedule, it is argued by Mr. Kohli that the Arbitrator had become de jure, incapable of performing his functions by reason of having appeared for the said M/s. SSSMIL during the pendency of the Arbitration. Reliance in this regard is placed on paragraph

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S COSMIC FERRO ALLOYS LTD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2025 is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant files affidavit of service not only in respect of the respondent/assessee but also in respect of the resolution professional appointed by NCLT under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Involvement of tax in this matter is only Rs.1,04,31,531/-. However, learned 2 counsel appearing

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 -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 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 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-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-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