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 was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

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 was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

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 was condoned. Thereafter, the review applications were taken up for consideration and it was found that since a connected appeal arising out of the same order passed by the learned Tribunal was already admitted, the three other appeals could not have been dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arises and this, in the opinion

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 9Th January, 2026

delay is condoned. The application is allowed. The application [IA NO: GA/1/2025] is disposed of. 2 The substantial questions of law as suggested by the appellant/department are as follows : “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5, KOLKATA vs. RAM NIWAS TAPARIA

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

35,491/- which was claimed as exemption from tax. Though it is right that we have allowed a batch of appeals by revenue, yet while considering an application under Section 5 of the Act, we 2 are to take note of several factors. We are also conscious of the fact that we have condoned longer period of delay

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. KCO ALUMINIUM LLP

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

delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2025 is allowed. 2 The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law for consideration. “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in quashing the order under Section 263 dated 31.03.2024 without considering that the Pr. CIT correctly invoked

MANISH BAID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(4) KOLKATA AND ORS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 13Th December, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv ….For Respondent The Court : - We Have Heard Learned Counsel On Either Side. There Is A Delay Of 163 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Offered By The Petitioner & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Application Ga/1/2023 Is Allowed. The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Ac 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 10.11.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Itat No. 530/Kol/2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 & The Order Dated 35 Of 2023 In Ma 7/Kol/2023. The Assessee Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application GA/1/2023 is allowed. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Ac 1961 challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITAT No. 530/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 and the order dated 35

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

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-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-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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA 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 ,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 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, 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