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?”

reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the ITAT, the revenue has filed the present appeal which was admitted on the substantial questions of law afore-quoted. Submission : 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the facts and figures relating to interest of Rs.2,89,68,884/- was well before the assessing

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)

9 KOLKATA VS P L GOENKA HUF For Appellant : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Advocate For Respondent : None Heard on : May 6, 2025 Judgment on : May 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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

9. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried away by the plea of the assessee like "voluntary disclosure", "buy peace", 26 "avoid litigation", "amicable settlement", etc. to explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Explanation to Section

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

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 out that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. If the assessing officer has cause or justification

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. 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 which was communicated to the assessee. 9. On carefully going through the reasons we find that the Assessing Officer raised suspicion by alleging that large value of non cash transactions in the account seems to be unusual and raises suspicion. Further it was alleged that huge turnover does not match with the financial profile and seems suspicion

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 which was communicated to the assessee. 9. On carefully going through the reasons we find that the Assessing Officer raised suspicion by alleging that large value of non cash transactions in the account seems to be unusual and raises suspicion. Further it was alleged that huge turnover does not match with the financial profile and seems suspicion

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

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

9, 2024 is perverse as the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, dated October 10, 2023, by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Kolkata, the Commissioner should have considered the same materials which were considered by the Assessing Officer during the re-assessment proceeding. It is further submitted by him that the learned Tribunal failed

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

9 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has referred to 2017 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Jindal Stainless Ltd vs. State of Haryana) in this regard. He has referred to the issues considered by the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 11. Learned Advocate General has contended that, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) noted that entry

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

9 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has referred to 2017 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Jindal Stainless Ltd vs. State of Haryana) in this regard. He has referred to the issues considered by the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 11. Learned Advocate General has contended that, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) noted that entry

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

9 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has referred to 2017 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Jindal Stainless Ltd vs. State of Haryana) in this regard. He has referred to the issues considered by the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 11. Learned Advocate General has contended that, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) noted that entry

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

9 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has referred to 2017 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Jindal Stainless Ltd vs. State of Haryana) in this regard. He has referred to the issues considered by the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 11. Learned Advocate General has contended that, Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) noted that entry

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ANJALI JEWELLERS

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Abhrotosh Majumer, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Kausheyo Roy, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Legal Issue Involved In The Instant Case Is The Scope Of Assessment Under Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act. The Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Revenue Has Been Answered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. Reported In [2023] 149 Taxmann.Com 399 [Sc]. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Summarised The Legal Position In Paragraph 11 Of The Judgment & In Paragraph 13 The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is An Agreement With A View Taken By The Delhi

9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/77/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL]-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. ANJALI JEWELLERS BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Abhrotosh Majumer, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Abhrotosh Majumer, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Kausheyo Roy, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Legal Issue Involved In The Instant Case Is The Scope Of Assessment Under Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act. The Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Revenue Has Been Answered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. Reported In [2023] 149 Taxmann.Com 399 [Sc]. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Summarised The Legal Position In Paragraph 11 Of The Judgment & In Paragraph 13 The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is An Agreement With A View Taken By The Delhi

9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/77/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL]-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. ANJALI JEWELLERS BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Abhrotosh Majumer, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avra

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S OSL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

9. In the light of the above discussion, let us examine the facts involved in the appellant’s/assessee’s case and ascertain whether the ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata enjoyed jurisdiction over the appellant’s case so as to enable him to frame reassessment order dated 25.03.2014 u/s. 263/143(3) for the AY 2008-09. As noted, the jurisdiction over

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

9 KOLKATA VS MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 15th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….for appellant The Court :- We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2 These appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

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

Section 158BC of the Act was completed on 27.02.1998 making an addition of Rs. 11.86 crores on protective basis. The addition was made on the ground that the assessee had withdrawn cash from two bank accounts of M/s. Pragati Engineering Limited (PEL) and M/s. Kalo Engineering Works Limited (KEW) and the same was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee