PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SEVEN STAR STEELS LTD

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

1). 7 “The counsel appearing for the Department relied on sections 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act read with Circular No. 9 of 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to contend that the appellant ought to have made an application for condonation of delay

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, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

condonation of delay is made through Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed and as a 8 consequence to which the appeal is also dismissed the said Judgment and decree is appealable. 11. In this aspect it is to be taken into consideration that the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court was passed on 28.02.2017 and from

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Explanation 1 appearing thereunder, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and adopted a wholly erroneous approach in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.43,56,900, in the instant case, on the alleged ground that the Appellant Foundation had concealed its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars

M/S SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

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

1. This is an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S Y R TRADERS PVT LTD

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

1. Challenging the orders passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) in respect of the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-18 and 2018-19 all dated 29th March 2021, the instant writ petitions have been filed. To consider the scope of the challenge, it is necessary to note down

CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA - CHARITABALE TRUST

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. Time and again we have been reiterating that at the time when the assessee applies for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E)'s jurisdiction is only to verify the objects of the Institution/Trust and look into the genuineness of the activities, meaning thereby that he has to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. Time and again we have been reiterating that at the time when the assessee applies for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E)'s jurisdiction is only to verify the objects of the Institution/Trust and look into the genuineness of the activities, meaning thereby that he has to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

5 which was admittedly issued in favour of the assessee on 27th January, 2021. The second issue would be whether the revenue can now contend that Circular dated 4th December, 2020 covers cases only when the appeals are filed with an application for condonation of delay between 1st April, 2019 and 31st January, 2020 and the appeal in the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ASISH KUMAR GHOSH

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St April, 2022 Appearance :-

5 which was admittedly issued in favour of the assessee on 27th January, 2021. The second issue would be whether the revenue can now contend that Circular dated 4th December, 2020 covers cases only when the appeals are filed with an application for condonation of delay between 1st April, 2019 and 31st January, 2020 and the appeal in the assessee

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-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-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

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 ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH 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-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH 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