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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

20,279/- for the assessment year 2007-08. 8. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer in the penalty order for the assessment year 2006-07, is reproduced below :- “The above submission has been carefully considered. The relevant facts of the case are reproduced below to ascertain whether the assessee had 6 indeed declared voluntarily the undisclosed income of Rs.4

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

20. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, passing reference to the Act of 2012 of the State was made in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) and that, although, State of West Bengal was represented in such proceedings and arguments advanced highlighting certain errors in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, nonetheless, the impugned judgement

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

20. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, passing reference to the Act of 2012 of the State was made in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) and that, although, State of West Bengal was represented in such proceedings and arguments advanced highlighting certain errors in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, nonetheless, the impugned judgement

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

20. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, passing reference to the Act of 2012 of the State was made in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) and that, although, State of West Bengal was represented in such proceedings and arguments advanced highlighting certain errors in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, nonetheless, the impugned judgement

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

20. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has contended that, passing reference to the Act of 2012 of the State was made in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) and that, although, State of West Bengal was represented in such proceedings and arguments advanced highlighting certain errors in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, nonetheless, the impugned judgement

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

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

reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee has already offered long term capital gain of Rs.74,24,380/- to tax under the IDS and paid the taxes thereon and this fact was brought

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. SRI SOUMITRA JOSHI

The appeal is partly allowed

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

Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 10th March, 2023. There were three allegations against the assessee, the first of which is that a search and seizure was carried out by the Director of Investigation, Lucknow on 18th December, 2021 in the case of Raj Group and Ors., in which against one Girdhari Lal Goenka was also covered

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

20 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/22/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … for appellant The Court : This appeal