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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

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 7(6), 35(1), 42(10) and 120(4) of the Companies

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

69. Mr. Kohli has candidly submitted in the course of his arguments, that his clients do not wish to press the argument of corruption and bias against the Arbitrator. In the above circumstances, the issue of fraud is not dealt with. This Court, even otherwise, does not find any fraud having been committed by the Arbitrator in the proceedings

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed