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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings bad when such notices were already issued by the transferor Assessing Officer? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings bad when such notices were already issued by the transferor Assessing Officer? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] cases and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled. 1159.7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State. 1159.8. Article 304(a) frowns

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

6.-Where any adjustment is made in the income or loss declared in the return under the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 and additional tax charged under that section, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in relation to the adjustment so made.] 18 Explanation 7.-Where in the case

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

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

2 the various orders passed by Assessing Officer increasing or reducing the relief under Section 80HHC of the Act? ii) Whether the purported assessment proceedings initiated by the Tribunal for the said assessment year 1994-95 is without jurisdiction and illegal since none of the conditions precedent for assumption of the jurisdiction existed and/or were satisfied? We have heard

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)

6, 2025 1. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ : This appeal filed by the revenue under 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

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

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 of the reopening of the assessment. On perusal of the 1 82 ITR 540 2 (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3 154 ITR 148 (SC) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 5 of 16 cash trail which

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

M/S KUMAR TRADERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings

M/S SUNIL FAN INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings

M/S HIGAIN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings