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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section.]” 11. Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 starts with a non obstante clause and provides that where, in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income tax payable on the total income

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

11(5) of the Act. The next aspect which was enquired into/ discussed was with regard to the genuineness of the activities of the assessee as to whether it was in accordance with the objects of the trust. After taking into consideration, the statements recorded from various persons who are said to ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page

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?”

5 Officer cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 147 read with Section 148 to proceed with the reassessment. The ITAT further held that the jurisdiction to rectify the order under Section 154 of the Act cannot be exercised under Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order

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

5, 1997 in purported exercise of his powers under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.” 10 We find that the learned Tribunal has written an elaborate order. However, we are surprised to find that the learned Tribunal has held that the assessee suppressed the material facts which was never the allegation in the reasons recorded for reopening

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 (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. V. Angidi Chattiar, 24 Shah, J., speaking for the court, while dealing with Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, observed: "The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about

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)

5 No.2142/Kol/2019 dated 18.06.2021 for the assessment year 2013-14 and held that the reopening was bad in law and, accordingly, allowed the assessee’s appeal. 7. The Revenue being aggrieved by such order are before us by way of this present appeal. 8. The first aspect which we need to point out is with regard to the effect

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

5 (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 6 of 16 the appellants that they had sufficient cash balance in its books was held to be not acceptable, more particularly, when the party to whom the alleged sales of Rs. 8,70,81,602/- was claimed to have been made has not been found to be existing

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)

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 to be considered is the validity of the reopening of the assessment proceedings and if the assessee is to succeed

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)

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 to be considered is the validity of the reopening of the assessment proceedings and if the assessee is to succeed

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

Section 158BC of the Act was completed on 27.02.1998 making an addition of Rs. 11.86 crores on protective basis. The addition was made on the ground that the assessee had withdrawn cash from two bank accounts of M/s. Pragati Engineering Limited (PEL) and M/s. Kalo Engineering Works Limited (KEW) and the same was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee

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.

11 of the judgment and in paragraph 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is an agreement with a view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax [Central]-III vs. Kabul Chawla reported in [2016] 380 ITR 573 [Delhi] and that of the High Court of Gujarat in the case

MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sauyma Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Routy, Adv. Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv. Ms. Ankita Agrahari, Adv … For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Legal Issue Involved In The Instant Case Is The Scope Of Assessment Under Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act. The Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Revenue Has Been Answered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. Reported In [2023] 149 Taxmann.Com 399 [Sc]. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Summarised The Legal Position In Paragraph 11 Of The Judgment & In Paragraph 13 The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is An Agreement With A View Taken By The Delhi

5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/62/2021 MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sauyma Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Routy

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

11 of the judgement and in paragraph 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. [Central] –III vs.Kabul Chawla, reported in [2016] 380 ITR 573 [Delhi] and that of High Court of Gujarat in the case