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

Section 263 dated 23.12.2019 concluded that Rs.3,63,122/- should be added as 2 interest free advance but in the computation part added Rs.3,36,122/- thus making the order erroneous ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to allow the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation

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. 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

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

2 by ignoring the findings of the Assessing Officer and the surrounding circumstances of the case? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to quash the reassessment proceedings and delete the addition of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- made on account of receipts from shell companies

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 dated 12.3.2019 was an ex parte order. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal in ITA/495/Kol/2022. During the pendency of the said 4 appeal the assessing officer issued notices under section 148 of the Act based on certain information alleged to have been received from DDIT (Investigation), Unit-4(2), Kolkata through their letter dated 27.2.2019 that

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 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

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

2 The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the following order: “8. At this stage, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of „PCIT vs. Usha Polychem Indias (P) Ltd‟ reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 240 (Cal), wherein, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court has held that where

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

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

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

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

2 III. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 10,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act? IV. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not taking the cognizance

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

2 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal substantially erred in law on holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax could not invoke the provisions of Section 263 in respect of the capital expenditure of Rs.1,60,75,000/-?” We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue

JNJ FINANCE COMPANY PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Assessee Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated August 10, 2015, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2008- 09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Is Correct In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Order Dated 27.12.2010 Passed In Pursuance Of The Proceedings U/S 147 On Specific Issue & Wherein The Subject Matter Of The Share

2 capital was not involved can be revised u/s 263 and as such the order u/s 263 is barred by limitation? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the first proviso to section 68, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013, applies to the assessment year 2008-09? iii) Whether

M/S METROCITY DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) KOLKATA & ORS

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

2 capital/premium in the course of proceedings under Section 147 is to be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue even though the reopening was done for the specific purpose of escapement of miscellaneous income of ₹12,500/- which was not property account for due to mistake? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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