PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RADHASHYAM TIRTHABASI PAUL

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

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

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

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. LAST PEAK DATA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES & ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance

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

10.]” Section 68 of the Act of 1961 allows the Assessing Officer on his subjective satisfaction arrived at and on the basis of the appreciation of the materials placed before him, to charge the sum credited in the books of the assessee to income tax of the assessee as income of the assessee. In other words, the Assessing Officer

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

5 (1980) 126 ITR 48 ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 12 of 26 introduced into the taxing enactments step by step in order to plug loopholes and in order to place certain situations beyond doubt even though there were judicial decisions covering some of the aspects. Even long prior to introduction of Section 68 in the statute

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MINTO PARK ESTATES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

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

10,00,000/- received from 8 subscribers out of 9 subscriber companies in the books of the assessee companies is cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and accordingly added the amount and completed the assessment. 5

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed