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?”

10. It may also be mentioned that at the stage of the issue of notice the consideration which has to weigh is whether there is some relevant material giving rise to prima facie inference that some turnover has escaped assessment. The question as to whether that material in sufficient for making assessment or re-assessment under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under Section 143(1) had been issued. 10. Bearing the above legal principles, we proceed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

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

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

10 Section 69(c) of the Act. With these findings the Assessing Officer was directed to reassess the income of the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

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

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

10 of 16 Parliament, when, it enacted Explanation 3 to Section 147 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 clearly had before it both the lines of precedent on the subject. The precedent dealt with two separate questions. When it effected the amendment by bringing in Explanation 3 to Section 147, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ARSHIA GLOBAL TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED

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

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

reassessment under Section 147 must fail.” 10. The learned tribunal has also failed to take note of the legal principle

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

10), the impugned order of the ITAT deserves to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the assessing officer has failed to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 during the course of assessment proceeding and has not recorded that the assessee has concealed his income. 15. Therefore, the penalty orders

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated November 10, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/375/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a. WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances

JNJ FINANCE COMPANY PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Assessee Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated August 10, 2015, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2008- 09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Is Correct In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Order Dated 27.12.2010 Passed In Pursuance Of The Proceedings U/S 147 On Specific Issue & Wherein The Subject Matter Of The Share

10, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2008- 09. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in holding that the order dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 14Th January, 2026

10,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act? IV. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not taking the cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Vedanta Ltd vs CIT reported in [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435(Bombay) wherein

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. SICPA INDIA LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

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

10, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Radhamohan Roy, Adv. … for the appellant/Revenue Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. … for the respondent/assessee The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated 9th March, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

10, Kolkata exercised his power under Section 263 of the Act. It is seen that the Assessing Officer himself had submitted before the PCIT that an error has occurred in the assessment order. After perusing the entire files as well as the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, the PCIT was of the prima facie opinion that the Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

10, Kolkata exercised his power under Section 263 of the Act. It is seen that the Assessing Officer himself had submitted before the PCIT that an error has occurred in the assessment order. After perusing the entire files as 5 well as the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, the PCIT was of the prima facie opinion that the Assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

10, 2023, by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Kolkata, the Commissioner should have considered the same materials which were considered by the Assessing Officer during the re-assessment proceeding. It is further submitted by him that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the documents considered in the re-assessment proceedings, based on the same set of information

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed by the impugned order. 8. As mentioned above, the first ground

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed by the impugned order. 8. As mentioned above, the first ground

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

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

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

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

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

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring