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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2,11,30,118/- Next year Tax, thereon NIL Assessed u/s. 143 (3) as above Please issue Demand Notice and copy of the order to the assessee. (MONALISA PAL MUKHERJEE) Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Kolkata” 5. As stated by learned counsel for the respondent assessee, a notice dated 23.03.2010 under Section 147/148

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

reassess such income which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently, in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 and though the notice under Section 148 (2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the premise that the notices under Section 2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the premise that the notices under Section 2

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

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

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

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

reassessment proceedings are perverse and based on no material whatsoever and was arrived at ignoring the relevant materials on record in particular its own order in the rectification proceedings and 2 the various orders passed by Assessing Officer increasing or reducing the relief under Section

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

reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub-section [2] of Section 263 of the Act would begin

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

2 i) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by quashing the reassessment order passed under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

reassessment proceeding without considering the Explanation 2(c) to Section 147 of the said Act ? ii) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated February 09, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/412/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : (a) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LTD.

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

Section 143(2) of the Act will not vitiate and/or make the reassessment null and void in the eye of law although

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

2 to Section 263 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015 and pointed out if an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry or verification then it would be a case where the order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL -3,KOL vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL ESSENCIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLY CORP.LTD,KOL

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

2 holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be illegal and consequently

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

Section 263 dated 23.12.2019 concluded that Rs.3,63,122/- should be added as 2 interest free advance but in the computation part added Rs.3,36,122/- thus making the order erroneous ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to allow the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation

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 is invalid as it is a case of change of opinion on the same set of facts and that the assessing officer erred in rejecting the books of accounts and wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) in its order dated 31.01.2019 first took up for consideration as regards the validity

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S OSL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 263 of the Act is devoid of jurisdiction?” 2 Accordingly, the substantial question of law suggested is re-framed on the above terms. We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. S.M. Surana, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find