PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

2) of the Act, the order passed by the Tribunal was perfectly legal and valid. The revenue also sought to rely upon Section 292BB 5 of the Act to justify their stand that notice is deemed to be valid and sought to bring the assessee’s case under the circumstances mentioned in Section 292BB. This question was considered

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

142. (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

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

142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced details and documents and made their submissions. The Assessing Officer observed that from the impugned documents it was seen that the assessee had deposited Rs. 59,42,709/- and Rs. 3,65,97,000/- with M/s. Nissan Developers

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

142 Commissioner or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that such

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

142(1) were issued and the case was discussed with the authorised representative of the assessee, written objections were also filed by the assessee. After perusal of the reply given by the assessee to the show cause notice issued on 11.12.2018, the assessing officer completed the assessment by order dated 31.12.2018. The assessing officer pointed out that the assessee

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)

2), Kolkata through their letter dated 27.2.2019 that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.2,48,50,000/- from Sandeep Roy, proprietor of M/s. Sarika Trading Company. Notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act and on 15.11.2019 show cause notices were issued by the assessing officer in course of reassessment

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

2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 6.8.2018 and subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee on 28.8.2018. The assessee filed their objection to the reasons which were recorded in the notice dated 23.3.2018. However, the assessing officer disposed

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

M/S METROCITY DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) KOLKATA & ORS

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

2 capital/premium in the course of proceedings under Section 147 is to be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue even though the reopening was done for the specific purpose of escapement of miscellaneous income of ₹12,500/- which was not property account for due to mistake? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not 3 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….For Appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th January, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 398/Kol/2008 & I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Quashing The Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Said Act Despite The Fact That There Was Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Material Facts In The

2 return of the income that SEB price used as indicator of realizable value of Power included an element of tax duty which is really did not have to pay? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the Order passed under Section 147 holding inter-alia that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT),KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA)LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th July, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In

2 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law is not appreciating that the re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is legal and valid?” We have elaborately heard Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned