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

4, in sub-section (5), for clause (b) and clause (c), the following clause shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 1st day of April, 2012:- “(b) turnover of imports of a dealer whose such turnover does not exceed rupees five lakh during a return period, subject to a maximum of total deduction of rupees twenty lakh

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

4, in sub-section (5), for clause (b) and clause (c), the following clause shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 1st day of April, 2012:- “(b) turnover of imports of a dealer whose such turnover does not exceed rupees five lakh during a return period, subject to a maximum of total deduction of rupees twenty lakh

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06 was issued by the assessing officer to the respondent assessee to reopen the aforesaid assessment. After reopening, the assessing officer passed reassessment order dated 21.12.2010 assessing 4

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

4 assessing officer to increase the deduction under Section 80HHC on the basis of the total income determined in the assessment. The assessing officer after discussing the case with the assessee passed an order on 19.9.1997 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) allowing the enhanced deduction under Section 80HHC as per computation filed by the assessee in their

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4) of section 92C, then, the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the Commissioner

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?”

Section 147 of the Act, 1961 seeking to tax receipt amount of Rs.2,89,68,884/- in the income of the assessee for the assessment year in question i.e. A.Y. 1997-98. Aggrieved with the aforesaid reassessment order the assessee filed appeal No. 499/CIT (A)-XIX/ITO, Wd (4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, non-issuance of notices under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the transferee Assessing Officer would not render the reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, non-issuance of notices under Section 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the transferee Assessing Officer would not render the reassessment

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

Section 148 of the Act dated 23.3.2018 and therefore, even assuming there was no material in the statement, the same cannot justify reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal has noted the facts as also taken note of the submissions made by the assessee as regards

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

4 of 16 have given donations for securing admission to professional colleges, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not carrying out its activities as per the objects of the trust. Accordingly, the amount said to have received as donation was added back to the income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by such order

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)

4 recorded by the assessing officer in the assessment order dated 25.09.2021 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. Before the learned Tribunal the assessee contended that the assessing officer has only acted on the information received from the investigation wing and has not recorded his satisfaction nor did any exercise to examine the transactions done

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

4 order of assessment was challenged on several grounds and, particularly, on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued within the time prescribed by the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction over the assessment file of the assessee at the relevant time. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVII, Kolkata

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

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)

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 the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.2,48,50,000/- from Sandeep Roy, proprietor of M/s. Sarika Trading Company. Notices were issued under section

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 having been done on new facts does not amount to change of opinion. Further it was pointed out that the assessing officer while finalising the scrutiny assessment did not have any knowledge of the assessee having transaction with various paper companies. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision in Avirat Star Homes Venture Private Limited 4

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

4, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 29th March, 2019 for the assessment year under consideration, A.Y. 2010-11. The reopening of the assessment and the order of reassessment under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL -3,KOL vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL ESSENCIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLY CORP.LTD,KOL

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be illegal and consequently cancelled the order passed under Section 147 of the Income tax Act ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata erred in law in holding that this is a case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. M/S PHALGUNI ENCLAVE PVT LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For Appellant Mr. S. Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. N. Mittal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- It Appears That There Is A Delay Of Twenty Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condone Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss) A No. 24/Kol/2021 & Co 05/Kol/2022 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12.

4 i] that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii] all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii] in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess