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

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

reassessment proceeding without considering the Explanation 2(c) to Section 147 of the said Act ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in not considering the fact that the assessee company was not an eligible unit for availing exemption under Section 10B of the said Act especially when

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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)

2. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are also identical and, therefore, ITAT/84/2025 is taken as lead case which relates to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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)

2. The substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are also identical and, therefore, ITAT/84/2025 is taken as lead case which relates to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “a) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

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 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

2 III. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 10,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as 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

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

2 in the assessment order as extracted above, we note that in the instant case, the justification of Ld. AO is not amenable to reason since he did not satisfy the basic criteria of independent application of mind on the material supplied by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. It is evident from the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO that

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

147 on specific issue and wherein the subject matter of the share 2 capital was not involved can be revised u/s 263 and as such the order u/s 263 is barred by limitation? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the first proviso to section 68, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. MANOJ JAIN

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

2 5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment as made by the AO u/s 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

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

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