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

260A of the Income Tax, 1961 is taken up for final hearing. Appeal is at the behest of the revenue and directed against order dated September 27, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.424/Kol/2020 relating to the assessment year 2012-2013 in respect of the assessee/respondent herein. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated May 04, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 456/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- (i) Whether the Tribunal can examine facts

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)

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13.8.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.807/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. 2 “1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 5th February, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 254/Kol/2020 for the Assessment Year 2015- 16. The revenue has raised the following questions of law for consideration: (ii) 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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 12TH December, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata “B” Bench (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in IT(SS)A No.118/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012- 13. 2 The revenue has raised for the following substantial questions of law for consideration

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.

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A No.255/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S EXPRESS TRADELINK PVT LTD

In the result, we find no perversity in the findings of the learned

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), "B" Bench, Kolkata, dated 8th February, 2024, in ITA No. 43/Kol/2021 for the Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Revenue has primarily challenge the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2 7,26,50,000/- made by the Assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. S K AGARWALA AND CO

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 7Th February 2025. Appearance : Mr. Aryuak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Mr. Alishan Hossain, Adv. ….For Respondent

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 5, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA/ 485/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. The revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2232/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- Heard Learned Counsel On Both Sides. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Low For Consideration :- I) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Transactions & Interest Expense Corresponding To Such Unexplained Loan Transactions By Holding That The Assessing Officer

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 16th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2015-2016. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of low for consideration :- i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed

SUBBULAKSHMI DEVADOSS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforementioned terms

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Kolkata, dated May 29, 2023, concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. The challenge is not merely academic; it is mounted against the Tribunal’s decision to proceed ex-parte and the consequential confirmation of a colossal, unsubstantiated

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed