JNJ FINANCE COMPANY PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Assessee Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated August 10, 2015, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2008- 09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Is Correct In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Order Dated 27.12.2010 Passed In Pursuance Of The Proceedings U/S 147 On Specific Issue & Wherein The Subject Matter Of The Share

Section 68 while framing reassessment pursuant to order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 and the said

LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(4) KOLKATA & ORS

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not 3 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act or not? 6. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddharth Das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 7. As an interesting question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, we requested Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel to assist

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 14Th January, 2026

68 of the Act? IV. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not taking the cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Vedanta Ltd vs CIT reported in [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435(Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High court discussed regarding the invocation of section 263 by the Principal

M/S METROCITY DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) KOLKATA & ORS

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous as well as not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of share capital/premium when no addition can be made under Section 68

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, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

68 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, IA No.GA/1/2016 (Old No.GA/3451/2016) is allowed. ITAT/420/2016: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 20th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.530/Kol/2012

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

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

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

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

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

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

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

68. Interim order passed by the Appeal Court on July 31, 2013 had permitted the assessment under the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be continued. It had also restrained refund of the tax already collected. Appeal Court did not vacate the stay granted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. Appeal Court had regulated the implementation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

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

68, 827/- on account of bogus purchases even after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the actual purchases ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing substantial relief to the assessee by ignoring the findings