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 to examine the facts of the present case qua the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal for allowing 7 the assessee’s appeal. As mentioned above, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the assessing officer has not formed

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

Section 147 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court in the 8 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 9 (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 10 (2011) 336 ITR 136 11 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) 12 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh

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

reassessment. Section 191 places an embargo on the declarant to the effect that any amount of tax and surcharge paid under Section 181 or penalty paid under Section 182 in pursuance of a declaration under Section 180 shall not be refundable. Section 193 deals with declaration by misrepresentation of facts to be void. The said provision commences with

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 that at the time of recording the reasons for satisfaction of the assessing officer there should be prima facie material on the basis of which the 7 (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 82 (Guj) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 12

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 2 KOLKATA vs. RAM RATAN MODI

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

10. From the above judgment and order, it is clear that the remand was for a very limited purpose and therefore, the second assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings could not have altered the protective assessment made to the tune of Rs. 11.86 crores on the respondent assessee as there is ITAT NO. 157 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page

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)

reassessment which was communicated to the assessee. 9. On carefully going through the reasons we find that the Assessing Officer raised suspicion by alleging that large value of non cash transactions in the account seems to be unusual and raises suspicion. Further it was alleged that huge turnover does not match with the financial profile and seems suspicion

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)

reassessment which was communicated to the assessee. 9. On carefully going through the reasons we find that the Assessing Officer raised suspicion by alleging that large value of non cash transactions in the account seems to be unusual and raises suspicion. Further it was alleged that huge turnover does not match with the financial profile and seems suspicion

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

12. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, Entry Tax of the State had also fallen for consideration in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has pointed out the various paragraphs of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) where the State Act was referred to, in support of such contention. He has contended that, the only requirement is that Entry Tax must

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

12. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, Entry Tax of the State had also fallen for consideration in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has pointed out the various paragraphs of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) where the State Act was referred to, in support of such contention. He has contended that, the only requirement is that Entry Tax must

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

12. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, Entry Tax of the State had also fallen for consideration in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has pointed out the various paragraphs of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) where the State Act was referred to, in support of such contention. He has contended that, the only requirement is that Entry Tax must

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

12. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, Entry Tax of the State had also fallen for consideration in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has pointed out the various paragraphs of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) where the State Act was referred to, in support of such contention. He has contended that, the only requirement is that Entry Tax must