PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. EVENT DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Circuit Bench At Port Blair On 09-01-2025 & Thereafter The File Was Processed For Approval From The Department For Preferring The Appeal.

6, 2026 [SR] Item No.8 The appeal is accompanied by an application under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LIMITED

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Circuit Bench At Port Blair On 09-01-2025 & Thereafter The File Was Processed For Approval From The Department For Preferring The Appeal.

6, 2026 [SR] Item No.6 The appeal is accompanied by an application under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay

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 :-

6 was filed only on 8th January, 2021. Consequently, there was a delay of 400 days. By virtue of the order passed by this Court on 20th January, 2021 condoning the delay, it is deemed that the appeal filed by the revenue for all purposes was within time, that is, as if the appeal had been presented not later than

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 :-

6 was filed only on 8th January, 2021. Consequently, there was a delay of 400 days. By virtue of the order passed by this Court on 20th January, 2021 condoning the delay, it is deemed that the appeal filed by the revenue for all purposes was within time, that is, as if the appeal had been presented not later than

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Act) for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application being RVW 2 of 2022. The Review Application arises out of judgment and order dated 19th August, 2019 passed in WP.CT 153 of 2019 by which a judicial review in the form of a writ petition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

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 is allowed and disposed of. ITAT 177 of 2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 20th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/954/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue

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

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

condonation of delay) under Section 119(2)(b). However, the assessee chose not to avail this remedy. We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record. The revenue is before us challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the revenue’s appeal and allowing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated January 31, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue Duly Assisted By Mr. Asok

condonation of delay is disposed of. ITAT/108/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 263A of the Income Tax Act, (the Act) is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) dated 26th September, 2018 in ITAT/569/Kol/2015 for the assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABA EARTHLINE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/111/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 9th November, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No. 1141/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XII, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ MURARKA

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 21st May, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1239/Kol/2003 and ITA No.1180/Kol/2003 for the assessment year 1998-99. The appeal was admitted on 28th November, 2011 on the following substantial questions of law: 2 (i) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHELTER PROJECT LTD

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

condonation of delay stands allowed. Re: ITAT/60/2020 We have perused this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) as directed against the order dated 17th October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.737/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIGHT COMMODEAL PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.96/Kol/2024 dated 24.06.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised

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. 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 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 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