PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S TECHNO TRACOM PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Anil Dugar, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel For The Respondent & Perused The Averments Set Out In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Application For Condonation. We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation.

seizure operation under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) by order dated 23rd March, 2015. The assessee moved the Tribunal and filed a miscellaneous application stating that in the light of the order passed under Section 154A dated 23rd March, 2015, the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act was unsustainable. Though the Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S HALMIRA ESTATE TEA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

search of his person led to the recovery of two gold bars, weighing 1,999.90 grams, who was transporting the same surreptitiously by hiding it within a specially stitched cotton waist belt, worn beneath his garments. The contention of 4 CUSTA 30 OF 2025 & CUSTA 31 OF 2025 Revenue that this unconventional clandestine way to carry the gold constitutes

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. D.K. BASAK JEWELLERS PVT LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

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

Section 133A of the Act in the business premises of the assessee. The assessing officer, after taking note of the report submitted by the survey official, proceeded to issue show cause notice to the assessee and considered the matter. In the assessment order, the survey report has been extensively extracted and the crux of the same is an alleged admission

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

68 of the Income Tax Act or not? 6. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddharth Das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 7. As an interesting question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, we requested Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel to assist

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 12, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/258/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances