Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 3rd June To 9th June, 2024

Nominal Index

Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137

Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138

Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140

Ignoring GSTR-9 Causes Prejudice To Taxpayer's Rights When Errors Committed Are Revenue Neutral: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137

The Calcutta High Court has held that ignoring GSTR-9 causes prejudice to taxpayers's rights when errors committed are revenue neutral.

The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Taltala, and New Market Charge, to consider the submissions made by the assessee, afford an opportunity of personal hearing, and examine the annual return filed in GSTR-9.

Calcutta High Court Directs ECI To Ensure Vote Counting Staff Is Strictly Appointed According To Guidelines Prescribed By WB's Chief Electoral Officer

Case: Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138

The Calcutta High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that counting staff for Lok Sabha polls 2024 are appointed according to the guidelines prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal.

Votes cast in the Lok Sabha polls are slated to be counted across the country on Tuesday, 4th June 2024, from 8 am onwards.

A plea was moved by Rathin Chakraborty, BJP's candidate from the Howrah constituency, who sought direction on the ECI not to engage contractual, casual, Anganwadi workers, para teachers and civic volunteers for the counting of votes in Lok Sabha elections 2024.

Justice Amrita Sinha directed the ECI to ensure that the counting staff was appointed strictly according to guidelines prescribed by the CEO of West Bengal.

Once Resolution Plan Is Approved By NCLT, Corporate Entity Starts With Clean Slate : Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sugato Majumdar held that after the insolvency proceeding is over and the resolution plan is duly approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, the corporate entity starts with a clean slate on rejuvenation.

The High Court held that once insolvency proceedings are concluded and a corporate resolution plan is approved, the affected companies commence operations with a clean slate (referred to Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd, Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd, CoC of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr and Innovative Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.)

AO's Failure To Make Proper Enquiry On Bogus Claim Of LTCG By Sale Of Shares; Calcutta High Court Upholds Revision Order

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, as the AO failed to make a proper inquiry on the bogus claim of long-term capital gain (LTCG) by the sale of shares.

The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that in the order under Section 263 of the Act, which shows that the PCIT has applied its mind, it came to the prima facie conclusion that the assessing officer should have treated the entire credit as bogus and added back the same under Section 263 of the Act, rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, PCIT has not solely proceeded based on the report of the assessing officer, but on perusal of the report, it has examined the facts.