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

unexplained cash credit under section 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. RAHUL PREMIER INDIA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th August, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Datt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

reassessment order without considering the fact that the reopening was made on the basis of specific and credible information from the investigation wing of the department ? 2. 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 2 Rs.40,00,000/- on account of unexplained

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 2 KOLKATA vs. RAM RATAN MODI

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

reassessment is void in law and not permissible. It was further contended that the assessing officer committed an error in changing the findings given by his predecessor in the original block assessment especially in the absence of any fresh material or evidence ITAT NO. 157 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 4 of 16 and it is a case of change