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

reassessment. Section 191 places an embargo on the declarant to the effect that any amount of tax and surcharge paid under Section 181 or penalty paid under Section 182 in pursuance of a declaration under Section 180 shall not be refundable. Section 193 deals with declaration by misrepresentation of facts to be void. The said provision commences with

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

1) of Section 148; the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently, in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 and though the notice under Section 148 (2) does

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

3) read with Section 147 of the Act disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and also making other additions on the ground that the assessee has wrongly interpreted the said Section. As against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 15.11.1999, the revenue had earlier filed appeal to the learned Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated

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

Section 145(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) in its order dated 31.01.2019 first took up for consideration as regards the validity of the reopening of the assessment. On perusal of the 1 82 ITR 540 2 (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3 154 ITR 148 (SC) ITAT 175 OF 2021 Page 5 of 16 cash trail which

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)

1) of the Act and specifically denied the alleged transaction with Sandeep Roy or his firm, M/s. Sarika Trading Company and submitted that such allegation was not supported by any document or evidence. While so, an assessment order was passed under section 263 read with section 144 of the Act on 6.12.2019 adding the entire share capital again

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

3 SCC 143 (Para-6), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "6. It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 (a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act dated 26.11.2018 as upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 24.7.2023 was set aside. The Tribunal has made a thorough examination of the factual position and it found that the facts recorded by the assessing officer are incomplete as the assessing officer has taken only

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

1) and for the other two years namely, AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 they were selected for scrutiny and assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. It appears that the Assessing Officer receiving information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai about suspicious business activities of M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sancheti’) which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

1) and for the other two years namely, AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 they were selected for scrutiny and assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. It appears that the Assessing Officer receiving information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai about suspicious business activities of M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sancheti’) which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

3) will not render the assessing officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under Section 143(1) had been

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 proceedings and delete the addition of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- made on account of receipts from shell companies by way of accommodation entries to evade tax despite the fact that there were materials available on record to establish the live link/nexus between the assessee and accommodation entry provider? We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. First

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the

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

3 held that omission on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 8Th July, 2025.

1 OD-7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/67/2025 IA NO: GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK DATE : 8th July, 2025. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant

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

reassessment order dated 25.03.2014 u/s. 263/143(3) for the AY 2008-09. As noted, the jurisdiction over the appellant’s case initially was vested with the ITO Ward-5(3) Kolkata, since the territorial jurisdiction over area or limits of area, where assessee’s principal office of business was situated. The vesting of jurisdiction with the said officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

1 to Section 147 of the Act which mandates “production before the assessing officer of account book or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the assessing officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proiso?” We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, learned senior standing counsel

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased