PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S JEALOUS COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

Section 68 will come into operation, assuming though not admitting that the first part of Section 68 of the Act of 1961 stands

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act. The assessing officer thus completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- The Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

section 68 of the Act. The assessee was informed that penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) will be initiated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unsecured loan and interest there off? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT LTD

In the result, the substantial questions of law are

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

section 68 while the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment in share capital and the applicable section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 11Th March, 2024 Appearance : M S. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debayan Dutta, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Revenue & Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent Assessee. There Is A Delay Of 59 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given By The Appellant Department For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Condone Delay Petition Is Allowed & Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 68 of the said Act to the tune of Rs. 19,14,50,500/- despite the fact that the genuineness

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific