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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

17 Explanation 5A.- Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of,- (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been

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)

17,342/-. Once again, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act being the second round of revision proceeding and an order was passed on 12.3.2019 setting aside the assessment order dated 30.12.2016. It is seen that the said order passed under section 263 dated 12.3.2019 was an ex parte order. The assessee preferred an appeal before

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

17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others) and 2017 SCC Online SC 2197 (State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and A. Che. And Others). 25. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, there are various provisions in the Act of 2012 prior

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

17 Supreme Court Cases 815 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others) and 2017 SCC Online SC 2197 (State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies and A. Che. And Others). 25. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, there are various provisions in the Act of 2012 prior

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. SRI SOUMITRA JOSHI

The appeal is partly allowed

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

Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 10th March, 2023. There were three allegations against the assessee, the first of which is that a search and seizure was carried out by the Director of Investigation, Lucknow on 18th December, 2021 in the case of Raj Group and Ors., in which against one Girdhari Lal Goenka was also covered

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED

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. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv. Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv. Mr. Saptarshi Kar, 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

17 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/172/2022 IA NO:GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [CENTRAL]-1 KOLKATA VS. M/S. ORISSA KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dhudheria

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

17 to 19 are based on post-search enquiries. The addition made for the unexplained share capital and unexplained unsecured loans, details of the alleged credits have been disclosed in the audited balance sheet of the company. Apart from the aforesaid, no other incriminating materials is found. 4. In this factual background, the learned Commissioner of Appeal relied upon