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?”

56,562/- paid as interest on borrowed capital for acquisition of fixed assets under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act inasmuch as the said assets have been acquired for the purposes of expansion of existing business of your petitioner and the findings of the Tribunal to this extent is unreasonable, arbitrary and perverse ?” 4. By judgement and 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

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 142(1

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

56(4), Kolkata, the assessment order passed by him is a nullity and without jurisdiction ? We have heard Mr. Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Atasi Sarkar for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction over the assessee

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)

56 (Calcutta)?” 4. We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/department and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. 5. The assessee filed these appeals before the learned Tribunal for all the three assessment years challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated

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)

56 (Calcutta)?” 4. We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/department and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. 5. The assessee filed these appeals before the learned Tribunal for all the three assessment years challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated

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

56. For the decision on the first issue raised in this batch of matters, paragraph 1159.6 of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) is of utmost importance where it has been held that, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements are to the extent

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

56. For the decision on the first issue raised in this batch of matters, paragraph 1159.6 of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) is of utmost importance where it has been held that, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements are to the extent

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

56. For the decision on the first issue raised in this batch of matters, paragraph 1159.6 of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) is of utmost importance where it has been held that, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements are to the extent

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

56. For the decision on the first issue raised in this batch of matters, paragraph 1159.6 of Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) is of utmost importance where it has been held that, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements are to the extent