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

21. Recently this court has an occasion to deal with a case of an addition made under Section 68

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)

68 of the Act. The assessee 6 among other things contended that the notices under section 133(6) of the Act was issued only out of 9 out of 30 shareholders and the details having been furnished, the assessee submitted that they have discharged burden cast upon them. Furthermore, the assessee submitted that the profit and loss account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

68,884/- in the income of the assessee. These facts are very much evident from paragraph 8 and the computation part of the original assessment order dated 27.03.2000. CIT(A) did not consider the jurisdictional issue of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 and, instead held that the order could have been rectified under Section

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR 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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. SRI SATYA NARAYAN 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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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 does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi