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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

24 Shah, J., speaking for the court, while dealing with Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, observed: "The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified

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-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

24,380/- has been offered by way of declaration under the IDS and accepted and apart from that a sum of Rs.3,76,219/- has to be added back under 10 Section 69(c) of the Act. With these findings the Assessing Officer was directed to reassess

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

24, 2013 and consequently stood obliterated. Consequently, we are also unable to hold that, the amendments sought to be introduced by the 42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned

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

24, 2013 and consequently stood obliterated. Consequently, we are also unable to hold that, the amendments sought to be introduced by the 42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned

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

24, 2013 and consequently stood obliterated. Consequently, we are also unable to hold that, the amendments sought to be introduced by the 42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned

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

24, 2013 and consequently stood obliterated. Consequently, we are also unable to hold that, the amendments sought to be introduced by the 42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned