COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. KHAITAN FOUNDATION

In the result, the connected application for stay IA

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

36 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find that the reasons assigned therein are satisfactory. However, we note that the respondent/assessee has not been served as of now. In any event, we are inclined to take up the main appeal for consideration

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 ?

36,337/- against the short term gain computed on depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1,KOLKATA vs. M/S.BOHRA G AND N N BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED

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

36 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/2/2021 In ITAT/116/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1,KOLKATA Vs M/S. BOHRA G AND N N BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED & IA NO. GA/1/2021 In ITAT/116/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1,KOLKATA Vs M/S.BOHRA G AND N N BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED

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 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.60,37,174/-. However, learned 2 counsel appearing

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.5,42,75,254/-. However, learned counsel appearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. ACYTELENE TREXIM (P) LTD.

The appeal is disposed of on the

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

condone the delay in filing this appeal. 2 The application, IA NO.GA/1/2017 [OLD No:GA/1865/2017] stands disposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/218/2017 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal

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-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly the same stands dismissed without

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th May, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated May 22, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1318/Kol/2019 and ITA No. 1538/Kol/2019

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, 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

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 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 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. 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-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-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR 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