PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

RAJESH JAJODIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 45 KOLKATA AND ORS

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

M/S SINGHI AND CO vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

TCG LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD vs. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE59 KOL AND ANR

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

SHWETA CHHAWCHHARIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-12

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. ELECTROCAST SALES INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA

27) of the Companies Act and Section 2(69) clarifies that a person who already has control over the affairs of the company can be termed as a “promoter”, (ii) the Companies Act as well as SEBI Regulations provide various obligations for the promoters and in this regard, reference was made to Sections

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

27. Judges, unfortunately, are not infallible. As human beings, they can commit mistakes even in the best of their judgments reflective of their hard labour, impartial things and objective assessment of the problem put before them. In the matter of interpretation of statutory provisions or while assessing the evidence in a particular case or deciding questions of law or facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. SMT SIKHA BAGARIA

The appeal is allowed and

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

house hold articles and cloths which are her absolute properties and when she was leading her nuptial life, then Mohanlal gave gold ornaments and other articles worth Rs. 50,000/-. 4. In or about 1995, Sanjay’s father came to Mohanlal with a proposal of Sanjay’s marriage with Madhu. At that time, Sanjay was preparing for pursuing