PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow. “According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, on an interpretation of the provision of section 80HHC(3) as it then stood the view taken by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable in law and therefore the Commissioner was right in invoking section 263

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the both appeals fail and are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 3Rd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...For Appellant

reassessment proceeding has to fail. The decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited (supra) was taken note of by this Court in the case PCIT vs. Champalal Omprakash, (2025) 171 taxmann.com 796 (Cal). The learned Tribunal, after entering into the finding that the reopening was bad in law, has also examined the factual position and has held in favour

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)

263 read with section 144 of the Act on 6.12.2019 adding the entire share capital again and the income was assessed at Rs.79,15,95,340/-. After about ten days by an order dated 16.12.2019 reassessment

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

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

section 263 in case of assessee on basis of an information received from Dy. Director (Investigation) regarding huge amount of unaccounted funds received in bank account of assessee, since a reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 14Th January, 2026

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same was non-est. He has submitted that the subsequent revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and the consequent order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s sec. 263 of the Act were, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. USHA MARTIN VENTURES LTD.

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263

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

reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub-section [2] of Section 263 of the Act would begin

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S OSL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 263 of the Act is devoid of jurisdiction?” 2 Accordingly, the substantial question of law suggested is re-framed on the above terms. We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. S.M. Surana, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not 3 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports