PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL KOLKATA 2 vs. M/S MANI SQUARE LTD

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

37 of the 1996 Act is thus inevitable. 42. Thus, the nature of such an order implies that the measures to be granted are for the protection of the subject-matter of the dispute till the passing of the final award. An interim order divorced from the ultimate relief would be beyond the scope of Section 17 as such

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

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

37 4 (2013) 39 Taxman.com 44 (SC) 5 (2011) 196 Taxman 181 (SC) 6 (2018) Volume 71 Sales Tax Advisors Page 22 (Tribunal) 7 1996 (86) ELT 182 (SC) WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 6 of 18  Corporation Bank Versus M/s. Saraswati Abharansala and Another in Civil Appeal No. 6708 of 2008 dated 19.11.2008 (SC) and  Government

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that

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

37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated 22.12.2016. 8. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that