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

Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

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

Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

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. Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid

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 the respondent assessee to tax. Aggrieved with the reassessment order, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal No.348/CIT(A)-I/C-2/10- 11 before

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

Section 80HHC of the Act by order dated 11.6.1999 stood set aside and the same attained finality upon dismissal of the appeal filed by the revenue before the learned tribunal vide order dated 20.8.2002. As against the reassessment order dated 30.3.2001, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed by order dated 20.11.2002 primarily on the ground

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

reassessment on the heads which were not part of the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment is not sustainable. The 2 (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 6 of 16 learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd.3

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

6 entitled, in respect of undisclosed income declared or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to reopen any assessment or reassessment made under the Income Tax Act, or the Wealth Tax 1957, or claim any set off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. Section

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)

Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. It was further pointed 6

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

6.-Where any adjustment is made in the income or loss declared in the return under the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 and additional tax charged under that section, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in relation to the adjustment so made.] 18 Explanation 7.-Where in the case

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

6 wherein it was pointed out that Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARAYAN TRADECOM PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

reassessment order without considering the established legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT, (2018) 405 ITR 213/303 ? c) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.22

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)

reassessment order was dismissed by CIT(A) by order dated 20.3.2023. This order was put to challenge before the learned Tribunal in ITA/375/Kol/2023 which was allowed by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 10.11.2023, which is impugned in this appeal. As against the order passed by the learned Tribunal in ITA/495/Kol/2022 dated 6.3.2023, the revenue preferred appeal before this

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings bad when such notices were already issued by the transferor Assessing Officer? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MANISH JAIN

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

reassessment proceedings bad when such notices were already issued by the transferor Assessing Officer? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

reassessment proceeding was already invoked and completed on the basis of same information, impugned revision was unjustified. The relevant part of the order of the HOn‟ble Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “4. The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

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)

6. The first aspect which has been considered by the Tribunal as well as by us is with regard to the validity of the reopening of the assessment for all the three years. It is seen that in so far as the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessments were scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) which

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)

6. The first aspect which has been considered by the Tribunal as well as by us is with regard to the validity of the reopening of the assessment for all the three years. It is seen that in so far as the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessments were scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) which

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.

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. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings