COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

274 of the Act, 1961, the assessing officer has not recorded the grounds on which the penalty was sought to be imposed. Therefore, the notice under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, 1961 was defective. Consequently, the ITAT has not committed any error of law or fact to set aside both the penalties. In support of his submission, learned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

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

section 274 of the Act, either on the ground that the relevant portions have not been clearly indicated or that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has not been properly made was not canvassed before the CIT[A]. This contention appears to have been canvassed for the first time before the Tribunal. It may be true that the Tribunal being

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed