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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/81/2025 IA NO: GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS MANISH JAIN BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 3rd July, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..for the appellant

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

15 April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 Commissioner or section 148 and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income, then, such person shall

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

2 read with Section 147 dated 28.12.2018 concluded that the source of investment is made out of accumulated Bank balance of the assessee, whereas as per records the said accumulated Bank balance has come from sale of penny share M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd. After elaborate hearing of the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated February 15, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/992/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : 2 i) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on the basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified. The relevant part of the order of the HOn‟ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “4. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

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. PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD

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

2), Kolkata through their letter dated 27.2.2019 that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.2,48,50,000/- from Sandeep Roy, proprietor of M/s. Sarika Trading Company. Notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act and on 15.11.2019 show cause notices were issued by the assessing officer in course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee filed its return

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

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

15 Supreme Court Cases 125 (Jayam And Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another). He has contended that, test laid down by the Supreme Court for giving retrospective effect have not been satisfied. He has pointed out that, Entry Tax Act came into effect from April 1, 2012 and that, the amendment introduced in March 2017 has created a new liability

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD

In the result, the appeal (APO/2/2023) is allowed and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Pranit Bag Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. ...For The Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th November, 2022 In Wpo/2571/2022. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) & The Consequential Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. The Learned Single Bench Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Ground That The Order Has Not Been Passed By An

2 authority having lack of inherent jurisdiction nor the order falls within the category of cases where the authority concerned has committed an apparent violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the learned writ Court observed that the order impugned in the writ petition passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither a final assessment nor a demand

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