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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

34 which requires a quasi- judicial enquiry to be held before the powers under the section can be operated result in mere duplication of procedure and in two enquiries of the same kind, into the same matter, conducted by the same official, and without any advantage to the parties. A construction so unreasonable and unpractical ought not to be preferred

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

34,66,719/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 27.03.2014 with the total income of Rs. 1,87,52,820/-. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the department was in receipt of information that in the assessee’s current account since the year 2010 large value of non-cash

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 02, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv ….For Appellant Mr. Somak Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th January, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 398/Kol/2008 & I.T.A. No. 537/Kol/2008 For The Assessment Year 2000-2001 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Quashing The Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Said Act Despite The Fact That There Was Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Material Facts In The

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of change of opinion is removed then in the garb of reopening the assessment review takes place. Apart from that we note that the very same issue namely the direction claimed in 80IA in the assessee’s own case for the 4 assessment year

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

34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, has referred to and relied upon the ratio laid down in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra). 54. The issues that Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) have

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

34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, has referred to and relied upon the ratio laid down in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra). 54. The issues that Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) have

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

34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, has referred to and relied upon the ratio laid down in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra). 54. The issues that Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) have

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

34 53. In holding that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, has referred to and relied upon the ratio laid down in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra). 54. The issues that Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT),KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA)LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th July, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In

34 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1141/2017) IN ITAT/129/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT), KOLKATA VS. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. Smarajit

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. TANUJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 14Th July, 2025.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 19.2.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1045/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “1. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error