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

Appeal stands dismissed and the

Bench: :

condonation of delay, and sought permission from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, before filing the revised returns beyond the statutory period of March 31, 2018. The appellants having belatedly filed their revised returns on November 27, 2018, which was beyond the due date of March 31, 2018 for the assessment year 2016-17, the assessment could only be done

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

condone delay application, GA 1 of 2025, is allowed. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate authority namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal - 4), Kolkata [CIT(A)] and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider whether addition is required to be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ARMAN ADVISORY PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 10Th January, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundulia, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court: It Appears That There Is A Delay Of 342 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Amit Sharma, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Saumitra Chowdhury, Mr. Avra Mazumder, Learned Advocates Appearing For The Respondent. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Filed With The Condone Delay Petition & The Delay Is Condoned. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.

delay is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, (the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 2 315/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

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 ?

set off of brought forward long term capital loss of Rs. 2,79,36,337/- 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

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-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. GA No. 01 of 2020 is allowed. 3. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Act is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal), dated 20.07.2018 in ITA No. 1907/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2001-2002. ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 9Th September, 2025

set aside the Assessment Order to pass the order of Assessment afresh allowing the Assessing Officer a second innings without considering that the direction in the order U/s.263 was to frame Assessment Order after considering the specific observation regarding irregular adjustments of carried forward loss with short-term capital gain and there was no direction for de novo assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOSCON LEATHER PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 23Rd April, 2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application GA 1/2025 is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.822/Kol/2023 for the assessment year

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share

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

loss of ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 74 of 150 Rs. 70,765/- rather than earning profit. After relying upon the various decisions, the assessee stated that she has proper documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the sale was made through recognized stock exchange i.e BSE after payment of applicable STT. The share