Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

NOMINAL INDEXPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 188Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 189Ravi Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 190ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 191P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 192Supriya Mondal and Ors. Vs. Binod Kumar and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 193Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Om Shiv Mangalam Builders Private Limited & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 194M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (NPCCL) VS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (MES) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 195Aftab Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 196Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 197The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 198MOONDUST PAPER PVT LTD. Vs VINAY SHAW AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 199ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 200GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 201UBS Switzerland AG Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 202In the matter of: Paresh Paul & others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 203JAHANARA BIBI @ JAHANARA BEGAM @ JAHANARA MONDAL @ JANU - VERSUS – UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 204Subhash Chandra Paik @ Chandara Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 205M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 206Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 207J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 208The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. M/S B B M ENTERPRISE. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 209ORDERS/JUDGEMENTMere Incorporation Of Investing Companies Under Companies Act Not Enough To Prove Genuineness Of Share Transactions: Calcutta High CourtCase: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 188The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.Stock Exchange & Banking Channels Cannot Mask Sham Transactions Carried Out Through Bogus Capital Loss Claim Companies: Calcutta High CourtCase: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private LimitedCase No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 189The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”Calcutta High Court Quashes Cancellation Of BSF Aspirant's Domicile Certificate, Says No Hearing Was Granted Before CancellationCase Title: Ravi Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 190The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has set aside an order passed by the State Authority cancelling the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner, on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before taking such a decision, which entailed civil and adverse consequences. Since the decision to cancel the certificate was procedurally flawed, the cancellation of the BSF's offer of appointment based on such cancellation of the Domicile Certificate was also quashed.Mere Use Of Expression “Arbitration” Insufficient To Constitute A Binding Agreement U/S 7 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High CourtCase: ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 191The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Srinjoy Das