Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024

NOMINAL INDEXAnkit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 141 THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR VS NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 142 Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 143 Bharati Tamang v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 144Mrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145 PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146 Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147 Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148In the matter of: Christian Mac Durand 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 149 Saila Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 150 VHP Dakshinbanga v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 151 Uphealth Holdings, INC. vs Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 152ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSIgnoring GSTR-9 Causes Prejudice To Taxpayer's Rights When Errors Committed Are Revenue Neutral: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137The 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 OfficerCase: Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138The 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 CourtCase Title: Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139The 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 OrderCase Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina GuptaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140The 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...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers