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

reassessment under Section 148 and he relied upon the same set of material and the audit objection and using these materials he cannot initiate rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the 8

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

Section 147 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court in the 8 (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) 9 (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 10 (2011) 336 ITR 136 11 (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) 12 (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bombay) 13 (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 14 (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chattisgarh

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)

reassessment contemplated under Section 147 of the Act would include “borrowed information” and the same ought not to be mistaken with “borrowed satisfaction” as there exists a striking distinction between the two concepts. Hence, conclusion arrived at by 3 the Assessing Officer based upon his own satisfaction drawn from the information received from the investigation wing cannot be said

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

8 9. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer in the penalty order for the assessment year 2007-08, is reproduced below :- “The above submission has been carefully considered. The relevant facts of the case are reproduced below to ascertain whether the assessee had indeed declared voluntarily the undisclosed income

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-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

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 27.03.2014,the assessing officer held that

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)

reassessment proceedings were taken and they were completed making addition under section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed

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)

reassessment proceedings were taken and they were completed making addition under section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed

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

reassessment. Section 191 places an embargo on the declarant to the effect that any amount of tax and surcharge paid under Section 181 or penalty paid under Section 182 in pursuance of a declaration under Section 180 shall not be refundable. Section 193 deals with declaration by misrepresentation of facts to be void. The said provision commences with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/285/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS PHILIPS INDIA LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date :13th August, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr.Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ..for the appellant

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

8 Assessing Officer was directed to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee’s appeal by relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Om Foregoing & Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA Nos. 509& 510/Kol/2017 for the assessment

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

8, 2016. The Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force on September 16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part

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

8, 2016. The Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force on September 16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part

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

8, 2016. The Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force on September 16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part

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

8, 2016. The Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force on September 16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory is not compatible with the constitutional scheme delineated 33 by Part

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

M/S R R SONS TRADING COMPANY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKA

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

M/S LEOPARD FINANCIERS PVT LTD. 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