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

reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under section 148 setting out the ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 11 of 16

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

16 (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income,- (a) for any previous year which has ended before the date of the search, but the return of income for such year has not been furnished before the said date

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

16 under Section 158BC of the Act was completed on 27.02.1998 making an addition of Rs. 11.86 crores on protective basis. The addition was made on the ground that the assessee had withdrawn cash from two bank accounts of M/s. Pragati Engineering Limited (PEL) and M/s. Kalo Engineering Works Limited (KEW) and the same was treated as undisclosed income

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 12 of 16

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

16 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/82/2025 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-17, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RADHASHYAM TIRTHABASI PAUL

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

16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying

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

16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying

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

16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying

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

16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part III of the Constitution. It has however left the issue of levies of Entry Tax satisfying

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BHANSALI FINCOM 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. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S. M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, 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

16 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/90/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [CENTRAL], KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BHANSALI FIINCOM 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. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. … for appellant Mr. S. M. Surana

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S SAMBUDDHA TRACON 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. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S. M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, 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

16 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/90/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [CENTRAL], KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BHANSALI FIINCOM 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. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. … for appellant Mr. S. M. Surana