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-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

c) to Section 183(1) enumerates the types of assessees who would be entitled to file such declaration. Section 184 deals with charge of tax and surcharge. Sub Section (1) of Section 184 commences with a non-obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act or in any Finance Act, the undisclosed income declared under Section

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

6 10. Before we proceed to consider rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 as applicable for the assessment year 2005-06:- “Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case

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

c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act., for such reason the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 13.03.2016. Subsequently, notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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

1, 2012 that is the date when the Entry Tax Act, 2017 came into effect. 76. Prior to the amendment of section 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 the same were as follows: – “4. …………………………………………………………………………… (5)……………………………………………………………………………. 43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased

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?”

1-4-1989, Assessing 16 Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief." 18. Before interfering with the proposed reopening of the assessment on the ground that the same is based only

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

c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC and such profits were to be further increased by the amounts mentioned in the proviso to the said Sub-section. Sub-section (4) of Section 80HHC provided that the deduction to Sub-section (1) shall not be admissible unless the assessee furnished in the prescribed form along with return of income

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

C” Bench, Kolkata, (Tribunal), in ITA No. 2042/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in law in quashing the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not appreciating

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)

6, 2025 1. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated February 09, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/412/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial

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

C” Bench, Kolkata is illegally justified to hold that since notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the ITO – Ward 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

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)

c. WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law as well as in facts by referring to the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of SM Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 450 ITR I(SC) [07-12-2022], since

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)

c) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Priya Blue Industries P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 69 (SC) and holding that the investigation report was not sufficient for the Assessing Officer

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)

c) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Priya Blue Industries P Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 69 (SC) and holding that the investigation report was not sufficient for the Assessing Officer

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

1 OD-6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/76/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS M/s. NARAYAN TRADECOM PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 10th June, 2025. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. RAM RATAN MODI

Bench: HON'BLE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

C” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal) in I.T.(SS).A No. 10/Kol/2002 for the block period 01.04.1986 to 27.08.1996. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: 1) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal while setting aside the Second assessment order, was justified in negating and/or countering the findings of the Second Assessing Officer with that of the First