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

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?”

6 before the CIT(A) in appeal which held the interest paid to be revenue expenditure, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, 1961. Since the Assessing Officer was not having any reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and as such the entire proceedings under Sections 147/148

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

6 After having elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) is just and proper and we find that the learned tribunal was not justified in reversing the order passed by the CIT(A). We support such

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

reassessment on the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment is not sustainable. The 2 (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 6 of 16 learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd.3

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

6 entitled, in respect of undisclosed income declared or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to reopen any assessment or reassessment made under the Income Tax Act, or the Wealth Tax 1957, or claim any set off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. Section 191 places

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

11 other arguments made on merits of the orders imposing penalty on the assessee. 12. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the ITAT, the appellant/revenue has filed the present appeal. Submissions 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty for both the assessment years was lawfully imposed by the assessing officer and it was correctly upheld

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)

6 out that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification; if the assessing officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. It was further held that the expression cannot be read

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

6 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 9 of 16 the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is the reason to believe, but not the established fact of a statement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether

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 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 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

6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/157/2023 IA NO: GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA VS M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD. KOLKATA BEFORE:- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2023. Appearance : Ms. Smita