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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1) of section 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

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

1) of Section 148; the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently, in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 and though the notice under Section 148 (2) does

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

1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 120 or any other provision of the Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, who is directed under clause (b) of sub-Section (4) of Section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an assessing

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

143(3) dated 27.03.2014,the assessing officer held that the assessee is habitual in taking accommodation entries from different shell companies and an addition was made under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessing officer noted the decision of the ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 4 of 16 Hon’ble Supreme

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

143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and also making other additions on the ground that the assessee has wrongly interpreted the said Section. As against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 15.11.1999, the revenue had earlier filed appeal to the learned Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 8Th July, 2025.

1 OD-7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/67/2025 IA NO: GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK DATE : 8th July, 2025. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant

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)

1) of the Act and specifically denied the alleged transaction with Sandeep Roy or his firm, M/s. Sarika Trading Company and submitted that such allegation was not supported by any document or evidence. While so, an assessment order was passed under section 263 read with section 144 of the Act on 6.12.2019 adding the entire share capital again

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings by holding the same to be without jurisdiction without considering that notices under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were already issued by the ITO Ward-61(4), Kolkata prior to transfer of the case to ITO Ward-6(1

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings by holding the same to be without jurisdiction without considering that notices under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were already issued by the ITO Ward-61(4), Kolkata prior to transfer of the case to ITO Ward-6(1

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

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?”

143 (Para-6), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "6. It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 (a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee

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)

1) and for the other two years namely, AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 they were selected for scrutiny and assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. It appears that the Assessing Officer receiving information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai about suspicious business activities of M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sancheti’) which

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)

1) and for the other two years namely, AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 they were selected for scrutiny and assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. It appears that the Assessing Officer receiving information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai about suspicious business activities of M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sancheti’) which

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

reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act dated 26.11.2018 as upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 24.7.2023 was set aside. The Tribunal has made a thorough examination of the factual position and it found that the facts recorded by the assessing officer are incomplete as the assessing officer has taken only

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LTD.

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

reassessment null and void in the eye of law although notice under Section 143(1) was duly issued along with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the both appeals fail and are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 3Rd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...For Appellant

1,51,00,000/- made on account of receipts from shell companies by way of accommodation entries to evade tax despite the fact that there were materials available on record to establish the live link/nexus between the assessee and accommodation entry provider? We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. First, we take up for consideration ITAT/77/2025 which

M/S KUMAR TRADERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

1(Suppl.) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/25/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/534/2015) M/S. KUMAR TRADERS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT/26/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/537/2015) M/S. R. R. SONS TRADING VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKATA ITAT/28/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/532/2015