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

58. Learned Single Judge having relied upon Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) in arriving at the constitutional validity of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 and subsequently, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) having overruled Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements, the impugned judgement and order

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

58. Learned Single Judge having relied upon Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) in arriving at the constitutional validity of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 and subsequently, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) having overruled Atiabari (supra), Automobile Transport (supra) and Jindal Steel Ltd (supra) and all other judgements that follow such pronouncements, the impugned judgement and order

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was passed by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced below: “1. The assessee company submitted its return of income on 16.11.2004 declaring total income at NIL which was duly processed

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

58,39,462/- and Rs. 8,70,81,602/-, the assessing officer held the transactions to be not genuine as the assessee failed to produce the parties related to those transactions and the summons issued to them were also not complied with. Further the assessing officer pointed out that in the scrutiny assessment made under Section 143(3) dated