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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

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

48 of 300 Radha Devi Mohatta, being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 1.3 OCO/3/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O No. 89 of 2020 filed by Arvind Kumar Newar and Nand Gopal Khaitan, being the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. APO NO. 90 OF 2020 Appeal filed by Birla Cable Limited 2.1 OCO/12/2020 Cross Objection in A.P.O

M/S. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St December, 2021 Appearance :-

48,257/- under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable and perverse? We have heard Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pranav Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent. The assessee is a company engaged in undertaking various

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWAL

Bench: :

properties to defraud any creditor. It is trite law that on the basis of such vague allegation no order or direction for security or injunction or an order of attachment can be passed against the respondents. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury has painstakingly pointed out that in case of a money suit, the Court permits attachment before judgment as prescribed under Order