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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

28. Language of the Explanation 5A to Section 271(1) of the Act, 1961 is plain and unambiguous. It applies to cases where, in the course of search initiated under Section 132 or after the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of any asset as mentioned in clauses (i) or (ii) representing

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to justify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee failed to produce original cash memos and bills for the sales alleged to have been effected and to substantiate the cash deposit into their bank accounts. During the scrutiny assessment based on the information received from the investigation wing, notice under Section

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

28 contended that, the portion of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge to the extent where it holds that levy of taxes is discriminatory, it is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has contended that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 even without its amendments does not qualify the test

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

28 contended that, the portion of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge to the extent where it holds that levy of taxes is discriminatory, it is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has contended that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 even without its amendments does not qualify the test

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

28 contended that, the portion of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge to the extent where it holds that levy of taxes is discriminatory, it is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has contended that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 even without its amendments does not qualify the test

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

28 contended that, the portion of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge to the extent where it holds that levy of taxes is discriminatory, it is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). He has contended that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 even without its amendments does not qualify the test