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

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. As stated by learned counsel for the respondent assessee, a notice dated 23.03.2010 under 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, 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?”

5 Officer cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 147 read with Section 148 to proceed with the reassessment. The ITAT further held that the jurisdiction to rectify the order under Section 154 of the Act cannot be exercised under Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order

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

5 of 16 The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Kelvinator India Ltd.2 to support the contention that the reassessment proceeding was a case of change of opinion. Several other grounds were raised touching upon the merits of the matter. 4. The CIT(A) by order dated 30th July, 2019 substantially

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 2 KOLKATA vs. SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/270/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS SUBHALAXMI CHEM PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 17th July, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan

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-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 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 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. 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

4 that pursuant to the order passed by the PCIT on the earlier occasion giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, he would have very limited power to examine the issues in the proceedings which have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for consideration and does not empower the Assessing Officer to make other additions. Several decisions were also

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD

In the result, the appeal (APO/2/2023) is allowed and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Pranit Bag Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. ...For The Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th November, 2022 In Wpo/2571/2022. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) & The Consequential Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. The Learned Single Bench Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Ground That The Order Has Not Been Passed By An

4 proceedings. The only ground which was raised by the assessee was that the information based on which reopening proceedings were initiated cannot be termed as ‘new information’. In support of his contention, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Alliance Filaments Ltd. vs. Assistant

M/S KUMAR TRADERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding

M/S SUNIL FAN INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding

M/S HIGAIN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding