PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

price of the shares sold and transferred by the Bagri Group of respondents to BulakidasBhaiya and his nominees within a period of 7 days' from date of the handing over of the share scrips and properly executed transfer deeds by the sellers to the purchasers in terms of this final Award. h) All other claims by parties against each other

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee

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

57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and under Section 142 (1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee was represented by her advocate before the assessing officer who had submitted documents in compliance with the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The assessee