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

15 of 16 Govindaraju was considered in Anil Nagpal and it was held that if the notice issued under Section 148 is invalid the assessing officer cannot reopen the assessment. Further it was held that even if the reasons recorded do not refer to a particular issue, the assessing officer would be entitled to assess the income or reassess

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated February 15, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/992/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : 2 i) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

15 April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 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

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)

reassessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act reckoning the income to be Rs.79,15

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

Section 142(1) of the Act, the Directors of those entities were to be personally present but however they failed to respond to the said notices. Further, the assessing officer on deeper examination of the facts found that the source of funds of the assessee is from entities who have either not filed their return of income or shown very

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/81/2025 IA NO: GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS MANISH JAIN BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 3rd July, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..for the appellant

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

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee has already offered long term capital gain of Rs.74,24,380/- to tax under the IDS and paid the taxes thereon and this fact was brought

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA

The appeal is dismissed and the questions of law are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 22Nd January, 2024 Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Sr. Adv. …For Respondent

Section 147 dated 28.12.2018 concluded that the source of investment is made out of accumulated Bank balance of the assessee, whereas as per records the said accumulated Bank balance has come from sale of penny share M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd. After elaborate hearing of the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD

In the result, the appeal (APO/2/2023) is allowed and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Pranit Bag Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. ...For The Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th November, 2022 In Wpo/2571/2022. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) & The Consequential Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. The Learned Single Bench Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Ground That The Order Has Not Been Passed By An

reassessment proceedings should be redone from the state of show cause notice as the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment has to be decided and to decide the same, the assessee should raise such objection before the very same authority. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and remand

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. 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)

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 the key person of Sancheti appears

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)

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 the key person of Sancheti appears

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

reassessment order of 30.03.2000 in the case of M/s. SWC which is not the case of the Second AO and so the finding of AO is per se contradictory and in this context the Ld. A.R. explained that in the case of M/s. SWC in the first round the AO noted that M/s. SWC has deposited Rs. 89.2 crores