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

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

1) of Section 148; the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently, in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 and though the notice under Section 148 (2) does

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?”

1)(iii) of the Act inasmuch as the said assets have been acquired for the purposes of expansion of existing business of your petitioner and the findings of the Tribunal to this extent is unreasonable, arbitrary and perverse ?” 4. By judgement and order dated 5.1.2009 in the aforesaid ITA no. 322 of 2007 this Court answered the aforequoted substantial questions

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

1) of the Act and not under Section 143(3) of the Act. The decision in Peass Industrial Engineers Private Limited was distinguished by stating that it was a case where the assessment was reopened within four years. Ultimately, the tribunal held the reopening of the assessment was bad in law since no allegation of failure on the part

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

1 (Delhi) [FB] which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. Taking note of the factual position namely, with regard to the proceedings initiated under Section 154 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that before the reassessment the opinion of the assessing officer underwent a series of changes from the original assessment order

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)

1) of the Act. 11. It was further held that if there was no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Assessing Officer could not have reason to believe that any part

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)

1) of the Act. 11. It was further held that if there was no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Assessing Officer could not have reason to believe that any part

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

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

11. At the hearing before us the learned counsel for the parties agreed after a day long exploratory exercise that the questions that fall for determination by this Court could be reframed as under: 11.1. (i) Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? 11.2. (ii) If answer

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

11. At the hearing before us the learned counsel for the parties agreed after a day long exploratory exercise that the questions that fall for determination by this Court could be reframed as under: 11.1. (i) Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? 11.2. (ii) If answer

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

11. At the hearing before us the learned counsel for the parties agreed after a day long exploratory exercise that the questions that fall for determination by this Court could be reframed as under: 11.1. (i) Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? 11.2. (ii) If answer

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

11. At the hearing before us the learned counsel for the parties agreed after a day long exploratory exercise that the questions that fall for determination by this Court could be reframed as under: 11.1. (i) Can the levy of a non-discriminatory tax per se constitute infraction of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? 11.2. (ii) If answer

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

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

reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on the basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified. The relevant part of the order of the HOn‟ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “4. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

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

1) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal while setting aside the Second assessment order, was justified in negating and/or countering the findings of the Second Assessing Officer with that of the First Assessing Officer. 2) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in replacing the opinion of the second assessing officer regarding withdrawal of cash from the bank accounts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. M/S PHALGUNI ENCLAVE PVT LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For Appellant Mr. S. Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. N. Mittal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- It Appears That There Is A Delay Of Twenty Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condone Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss) A No. 24/Kol/2021 & Co 05/Kol/2022 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/281/2022 IA NO. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA -VERSUS- M/s. PHALGUNI ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 8th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for appellant