PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS P LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 15, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Gupta, Adv. Mr. I. Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2022 The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 210 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/185/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata dated 10th August, 2021 in ITA No. 473Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2 2014-15. The revenue has raised

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

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

condonation of delay being IA No.GA/1/2021 is allowed. Re: ITAT/164/2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 5th December, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1470/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S T.M. INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Appeal is dismissed on the ground of low

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 15Th December, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 40 was to take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2010 and accordingly, was supposed to apply in relation to the Assessment Year 2010-11 ? ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, erred in law in deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee by deleting

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 ?

40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and accepting the fresh evidence of expenses without remanding the case to the Assessing officer which violates rules 46A of I.T. Rules 1962 ? F. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Learned CIT(A) for allowing the Education Cess as expenditure under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. M/S MAA LILORI ISPAT PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For The 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 January 5, 021, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.1156/Kol./2019, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, we are not required to examine as to whether any substantial question 3 of law arises for consideration. Therefore, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, there were four

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

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 stands disposed of. ITAT No. 96 of 2021 4. 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 15th January, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 707/Kol/2019 for the assessment year

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 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

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 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

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 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

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. 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Avra Majumder, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. Though There Is No Satisfactory Explanation For The Inordinate Delay Of 1018 Days In Filing The Appeal, Since We Are Inclined To Take Up The Main Appeal Itself For Consideration & To Ascertain As To Whether Any Substantial Question Of Law Arises For Consideration, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. For Such Reason, The Application Being Ia No.:Ga/1/2022 Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application being IA No.:GA/1/2022 is allowed. 2 ITAT/241/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `C’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A

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 ,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, 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-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, 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