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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

14. Under the circumstances, the assessing officer issued notice to the respondent assessee under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 after recording four reasons for reopening of assessment, which have been reproduced by the ITAT in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. The reason Nos.1 and 2 recorded by the assessing officer relate to the liability of the respondent assessee

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

2) Act of 209. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of Section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that

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?”

reassessment is an error discovered in the earlier view taken by it during original assessment proceedings. (See Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1980) 4 SCC 71). 29. The standard of reason exercised by the assessing Authority is laid down as that of an honest and prudent person who would act on reasonable grounds

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

14 then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2.- Where the source of any receipt, deposit, outgoing or investment in any assessment year

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)

14 SCC 208. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. It was further pointed 6 out that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause

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

14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure can 6 be made. However, in your case, the A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs.1,62,405/-, being 3% of such bogus expenditure/purchases whereas the entire amount was required

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

2 (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3 154 ITR 148 (SC) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 5 of 16 cash trail which was discussed by the CIT, he opined that those facts were not before the assessing officer when the scrutiny assessment order was passed on 27.03.2014. Further it was noted that sufficient material evidence has been passed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial

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

2 holding that no addition can be made under Section 153A/143(3) of the said Act since no incriminating documents/materials were found or seized during the search ?” We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Gupta and Mr. Indranil Banderjee, learned Advocates appearing

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)

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a. WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law as well as in facts by rejecting the appeal of the revenue without adjudicating the merits of the appeal? b. WHETHER on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure can be made. However, in your case, the A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs.1,62,405/-, being 3% of such bogus expenditure/purchases whereas the entire amount was required

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

2. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are also identical and, therefore, ITAT/84/2025 is taken as lead case which relates to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

2. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are also identical and, therefore, ITAT/84/2025 is taken as lead case which relates to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

2. We have heard Mr. Om Narain Rai, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Asim Chowdhury and Mr. Soham Sen, learned advocates appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The facts which are necessary for considering the substantial questions of law suggested

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KANAIYALAL SHAH

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. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant 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 Chawla Reported In [2016] 380 Itr 573 [Delhi] & That Of The High Court Of Gujarat In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Saumya

2 Construction reported in [2016] 387 ITR 529 [Gujarat]. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment namely, in paragraph 14 the conclusion has been recorded, which is as follows : “14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i] that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT 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. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … For Appellant 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 Chawla Reported In [2016] 380 Itr 573 [Delhi] & That Of The High Court Of Gujarat In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Saumya

2 Construction reported in [2016] 387 ITR 529 [Gujarat]. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment namely, in paragraph 14 the conclusion has been recorded, which is as follows : “14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i] that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEL CASTING 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. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant 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 Chawla Reported In [2016] 380 Itr 573 [Delhi] & That Of The High Court Of Gujarat In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Saumya

2 Construction reported in [2016] 387 ITR 529 [Gujarat]. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment namely, in paragraph 14 the conclusion has been recorded, which is as follows : “14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i] that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay

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

14. Referring to the writ petitions directed against the orders of the learned tribunal, learned Advocate general has contended that the learned tribunal erred in fact and law. He has pointed out that the Entry Tax Act was promulgated on April 1, 2012. Learned Single Judge had struck down the Entry Tax Act on June 24, 2013 but granted stay