PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

3 One more issue which is apparent on the face of the re-assessment order is that the notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee on 23.3.2019 and the assessee filed its return of income on 31.7.2018. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 6.8.2018 and subsequently

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

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 of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts

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

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 by the Calcutta High Court in the writ petition filed by SWC in W.P No. 11982/7/1999 relating to the block assessment and also regular

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARAYAN TRADECOM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

reassessment order without considering the established legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT, (2018) 405 ITR 213/303 ? c) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.22