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

D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. (Samsung) Ms. Mannat Waraich, Adv. Mr. A. Behura, Adv Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyaa, Adv. 4 No. 2 Ms. Stuti Bansai, Adv. For Ranbaxy Laboratories: Mr. Suman Basu, Adv. Pvt. Ltd. For the Respondent : Mr. Kumarjit

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

D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. (Samsung) Ms. Mannat Waraich, Adv. Mr. A. Behura, Adv Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyaa, Adv. 4 No. 2 Ms. Stuti Bansai, Adv. For Ranbaxy Laboratories: Mr. Suman Basu, Adv. Pvt. Ltd. For the Respondent : Mr. Kumarjit

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

D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. (Samsung) Ms. Mannat Waraich, Adv. Mr. A. Behura, Adv Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyaa, Adv. 4 No. 2 Ms. Stuti Bansai, Adv. For Ranbaxy Laboratories: Mr. Suman Basu, Adv. Pvt. Ltd. For the Respondent : Mr. Kumarjit

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

D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. (Samsung) Ms. Mannat Waraich, Adv. Mr. A. Behura, Adv Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyaa, Adv. 4 No. 2 Ms. Stuti Bansai, Adv. For Ranbaxy Laboratories: Mr. Suman Basu, Adv. Pvt. Ltd. For the Respondent : Mr. Kumarjit

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BST INFRATECH LTD

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

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

D) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by failing to appreciate that neither the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors nor the genuineness of the transactions has been established and that being no addition made by the AO and CIT(A) were perfectly justified. 2. We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai and Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST

Appeal stands dismissed and the connected

Bench: The Assessing Officer In The Course Of The Proceedings Subsequent To The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19Th April, 2023. 2. During The Pendency Of The Proceedings The Assessment Has Been Completed & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On 13.03.2025 Which Is Sought To Be Brought

17 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) APO/186/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023 ADWEALTH STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. For Appellant : Mr. Pranit Bag, Advocate Ms. Pooja Jewrajka, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate

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)

D- THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) ITAT/10/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS M/S MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Mr. Aryak Dutt, Advocate Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate ….for the Appellant. Mr. S. M. Suraja, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Advocate . . .for the Respondent. HEARD ON : 07.3.2025 JUDGMENT ON : 07.3.2025 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ. : 1. This appeal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. SMT RUPAL DHUPELIA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

5 the suit for divorce with the observation that the appellant was not happy residing with the respondent since there was a huge status gap between the parties, but that the dismissal of the suit would not confer any right on the respondent/husband to forcibly enter into the residential quarters or the premises of the plaintiff/wife wherever she might

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating

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

17 of 150 gain but the shares of Surabhi Chemicals had risen to such a level without any fundamentals which is beyond anyone’s imagination. 5. In the background of all these investigations, the case of the assessee was discussed by the assessing officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee sent reply through her advocate stating