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?”

8 “28. This Court has consistently held that such material on which the assessing Authority bases its opinion must not be arbitrary, irrational, vague, distant or irrelevant. It must bring home the appropriate rationale of action taken by the assessing Authority in pursuance of such belief. In case of absence of such material, this Court in clear terms has held

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

13], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act, 1961 in the context of surrender of income after search and seizure and after observing that surrender of income is concealment as the surrender was not voluntary, and held as under:- “9. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried

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-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

reassessment under Section 147 must fail.” 10. The learned tribunal has also failed to take note of the legal principle that at the time of recording the reasons for satisfaction of the assessing officer there should be prima facie material on the basis of which the 7 (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 82 (Guj) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page

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 CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

13 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) ITAT/240/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA VS PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD For Appellant : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Advocate Ms. Sretapa

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

13. Referring to 2019 volume 17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Indian Oil Corporation) learned Advocate General has contended that, post Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) the appropriate course of action in respect of assessees raising grievances of imposition of Entry Tax would be to permit such assessees to file fresh petitions raising such issues

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

13. Referring to 2019 volume 17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Indian Oil Corporation) learned Advocate General has contended that, post Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) the appropriate course of action in respect of assessees raising grievances of imposition of Entry Tax would be to permit such assessees to file fresh petitions raising such issues

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

13. Referring to 2019 volume 17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Indian Oil Corporation) learned Advocate General has contended that, post Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) the appropriate course of action in respect of assessees raising grievances of imposition of Entry Tax would be to permit such assessees to file fresh petitions raising such issues

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

13. Referring to 2019 volume 17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Indian Oil Corporation) learned Advocate General has contended that, post Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) the appropriate course of action in respect of assessees raising grievances of imposition of Entry Tax would be to permit such assessees to file fresh petitions raising such issues

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)

8 assessment was done under section 143(3) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that in such scrutiny assessment the revenue has accepted the purchases and sales for those two years. This would go to show that the revenue did not dispute the business transactions of the assessee. The statement said to have been recorded from

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)

8 assessment was done under section 143(3) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that in such scrutiny assessment the revenue has accepted the purchases and sales for those two years. This would go to show that the revenue did not dispute the business transactions of the assessee. The statement said to have been recorded from

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

13,476/- to be added to the total income for the said years. The Assessing Officer rejected such submission. After doing so he had observed that the assessee got same benefit of such bogus purchase, there would be no denial of the fact that the assessee’s estimated income will increase to a certain extent. After making such an observation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PASARI MULTIPROJECTS PVT LTD

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. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue 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 High Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central]-Iii Vs. Kabul

8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/54/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL]-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. PASARI MULTIPROJECTS PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Avra Mazumder

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13,KOLKATA vs. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL HUF

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. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue 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 High Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central]-Iii Vs. Kabul

8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/54/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL]-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. PASARI MULTIPROJECTS PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Avra Mazumder

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

8. In the first order of the tribunal dated 18.10.1999, the original block assessment order was set aside by rendering the following findings: “3. It has been learnt that the tribunal has set aside the block assessment order in the case of SWC and has directed the AO to reassess the same in the light of an order passed