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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,- (a) the loss shall not include depreciation; (b) the provisions of this clause shall not apply if the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation is nil; or] (iv) the amount of profits eligible

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 Facts : 3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of textile goods, rayon, transparent paper, cast iron pipes, fire bricks and cement through its different units i.e. Kesoram Textiles, Kesoram Rayon, Kesoram Spun Pipes, Kesoram Refractories, Kesoram Cement and Vasavadatta Cement. During the assessment year in question

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

iii) of this sub-section, the expression "the amount of tax sought to be evaded",- (a) in any case where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return or converting that loss into income, means the tax that would

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, 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