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

5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering

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

5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering

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

5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering

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

5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in section 4 (1) of the Act of 2012. 52. It is in this factual matrix that we are considering

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 it was held that several Sections starting from Section 68 have been 4 (1958) 34 ITR 807 5

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)

Section 68 of the Act and accordingly added the amount and completed the assessment. 5. The assessee filed appeal

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

5 There are three provisos to Section 68 of the Act of 1961. The first proviso deals with a loan

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)

5. The first issue which was considered by the appellate authority was whether the tax recovery officer was an Assessing Officer after referring to various statutory provisions which was held that the assessee was covered under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act. Apart from that it was held that not only

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

Section 68 of the Act. 5 Mr. S. N. Dutta vehemently contends that the substantial amount of funds are involved

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

Section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 10 of 14 explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. Versus

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 68 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision

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 has to be interpreted, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus P. Mohanakala13 With regard to the burden of proof/ onus of proof reliance was placed and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Versus CIT 14. For the same proposition reliance was placed on the decision