PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RADHASHYAM TIRTHABASI PAUL

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

deduction of rupees twenty lakh in a year;”” 78. Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

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

deduction of rupees twenty lakh in a year;”” 78. Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. LAST PEAK DATA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

deduction of rupees twenty lakh in a year;”” 78. Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

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

deduction of rupees twenty lakh in a year;”” 78. Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….For Appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th January, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 398/Kol/2008 & I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Quashing The Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Said Act Despite The Fact That There Was Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Material Facts In The

deduction under Section 80IA of the Act and query was raised and the case was discussed and the assessee had placed material before the assessing officer and it is only thereafter the realisable market value of the power as adopted by the assessee was initially accepted by the assessing officer. Therefore, the Tribunal, in our considered view, rightly stated that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

reassessment order, has become infructuous. Aggrieved with the order of the ITAT, the revenue has filed the present appeal. Submissions 7. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that as per the original assessment order, the respondent assessee has disclosed a net profit of Rs.58,77,595/-, to which, a sum of Rs.18,74,034/- was added on account of disallowance

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148]; (c) in any other case, means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

deduction of the aforesaid interest paid of Rs.2,89,68,884/- and without adding interest 3 received of Rs.2,89,68,884/-. Thus, the assessing officer treated the interest paid as capital receipt and the interest received as revenue receipt. Although the assessing officer discussed in detail in paragraph 8 of the assessment order the claim of the aforesaid interest