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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2 recorded by the assessing officer relate to the liability of the respondent assessee under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 and escapement of tax to the tune of Rs.6,11,892/-. The third reason recorded by the assessing officer was that the loss available in the previous year was Rs.40,66,962/- but the carried forward loss has been

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 the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment is not sustainable. The 2 (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 6 of 16 learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd.3

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?”

2,89,68,884/- as income in his return, therefore, merely for the reasons that the addition of income offered by the assessee was made by the assessing officer by issuing notice under Section 148 instead of rectifying it under Section 154 of the Act, 1961 does not mean that the aforesaid income was not taxable. Against this order

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. SICPA INDIA LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

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

2 the reassessment order passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as bad in law in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 in deleting the disallowance of Rs.45,17

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-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-1, KOLKATA vs. LAST PEAK DATA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

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-1, KOLKATA vs. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

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

2 We have heard Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The notice was issued under 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

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

2 year 2012-13. In view thereof, they cannot be treated as incriminating material for the year under appeal. 3. Similarly, there is a factual finding that for the other impounded materials, the Assessing Officer has himself observed in the assessments that they are part of the regular books of accounts duly disclosed in the income tax return as well