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

ii) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act., for such reason the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 13.03.2016. Subsequently, notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced

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

ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in holding that the order under Section 263 of the Act was without jurisdiction as such as the items of addition directed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was part of IDS, 2016 and not part of order under Section 143(3) of the Act? iii) Whether

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-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 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