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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

58 of 300 2012. That estate of PDB must be read according to the affidavit of assets in PLA 242 of 2004. PDB’s share holding in any company was never included in the estate of PDB, the majority decision of APL dated 19.07.2019 is not valid. 10. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the prayer sought

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

Properties Limited Versus Goman Agro Farms Private Limited 42. Mr. Bagaria also referred to the decision of the House of Lords in IRC Versus Duke of Westminster 43 which has been extensively referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan. On the next topic namely when civil consequences entails rules of natural justice must be complied with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Properties Limited Versus Goman Agro Farms Private Limited 42. Mr. Bagaria also referred to the decision of the House of Lords in IRC Versus Duke of Westminster 43 which has been extensively referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan. On the next topic namely when civil consequences entails rules of natural justice must be complied with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Properties Limited Versus Goman Agro Farms Private Limited 42. Mr. Bagaria also referred to the decision of the House of Lords in IRC Versus Duke of Westminster 43 which has been extensively referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan. On the next topic namely when civil consequences entails rules of natural justice must be complied with