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)

U/s. 147 of the Act and in not adjudicating the merits of the case when there is the involvement of the issue of bogus purchase by the assessee? e) WHETHER the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not considering that the transactions involved in the case were not only of highly suspicious nature, but the same

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)

u/s. 154?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/department and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21 [CIT(A)] dated 20.3.2023 by which the CIT(A) affirmed the assessment order dated

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

reopening of the assessment in this case was done without taking approval of the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. He, therefore, has submitted that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147

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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

M/S SUNIL FAN INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

M/S HIGAIN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) 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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

M/S MAYUR VYAPAR 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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

M/S RAMESHWAR LAL SAJJAN KUMAR (PRESENTLY VINSA ELECTRICAL P 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.

reopening proceedings, ii) the initiation of reassessment proceedings being barred by limitation, and iii) with regard to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 5 The learned Tribunal noted that the present litigation was a second round of litigation and the issue pertaining to service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL TOUCH FABLON PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

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

reopened by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act 4 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 27.03.2021. We note that the assessee vide e-mail to the department on 30.03.2021 stated that the return filed originally may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. We also note that notice u/s

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. BOOTHNATH VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

assessment, reassessment was not justified.” 5.3. Ld. AO simply based his belief on the alleged report supplied by the DCIT, (Investigation), Kolkata for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act without adducing on record any evidence in support thereof and without any independent application of mind on the issue. It is an inalienable principle of law that the reasons recorded

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. MANOJ JAIN

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

147 read with Section 148 of the Act is invalid on three counts namely: i) Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by non- jurisdiction AO ii) Notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2017 was unsigned by referring to page no 202 which is the copy of said notice. iii) That the reasons recorded by AO, Ward-35(4), Kolkata whereas

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth 4 Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

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

reopen the assessment by resorting to the provisions of Section 148 r.w.S. 147 of the Act ? Admittedly, in the present case the relevant A.Y. involved is 2003-04 and 2004-05 and in both the years’ assessment were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and matter travelled upto the Tribunal as noted in the reasons recorded