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 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)

14 SCC 208. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. It was further pointed 6 out that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause

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-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

10 (1991) 191 ITR 662 11 (2021) 133 Taxmann.com 315 (Madras) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 13 of 16 was whether reopening of the assessment on the ground that there was no investment in shares by the assessee therein and the income earned by it from sale of shares had to be treated as business income and not as capital

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)

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 of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law as well

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 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)

10. The learned Tribunal has elaborately examined the factual position and found that after receipt of the report from the Investigation Wing the Assessing Officer has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts in the regular return of income filed

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)

10. The learned Tribunal has elaborately examined the factual position and found that after receipt of the report from the Investigation Wing the Assessing Officer has to first form a belief about the escapement of income and that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts in the regular return of income filed

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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 CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial

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

10, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 2094/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :- “Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition made under Section