INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA v. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

302 CTR 201Supreme Court of India2018#12632 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 197 Section 201 Section 250 Section 263 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

company business document

Judgments citing INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA v. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2455/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

…e case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata I.T.A. Nos.: 2454 & 2455/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 293 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 201 (SC)[24-04-2018] in respect of the amendment to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held the amendment to be curative and, therefore, retrospective in nature, an extract of the findings from which is as under: “■ The controversy surrounding the above amendment was whether the amendment being curative…

SHREYANS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2454/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

NUIPACIFIC TRAVELS AND TOURS PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(3)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6123/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 44A

…vely under section 28(iv) of the Act. As regards addition under section 28(iv) of the Act is concerned, the addition involved is not at all sustainable on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 302 CTR 201 wherein such addition has been held to be unsustainable in as much as it was expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court that this section is not applicable for non-cash transaction. In the present case, it is a non cash transaction for the year. 9. As regards the issue of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned there is due prescription of the Act under s…

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA POWER CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 2 of the aforesaid appeal is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 3036/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2003-04

…2 in their appeal in ITA No. 3036/M/2009 as above. 7. We note that the ITAT in earlier year in assessee’s own case has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2018] 302 CTR 201 (SC), on identical issue. We note that in similar situation Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) has reiterated the decision of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra), after duly considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyanger & Sons, [1996] 222 ITR 344. It was duly held that s…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P LTD.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/367/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 40

…en the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA Vs. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY’ (2018) 302 CTR 201 (SC). 4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/366/2016HC Karnataka17 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 40

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)

…2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 makes it clear that the impugned disallowance does not apply in case an assessee is not in default u/s 201(1) first proviso of the Act if the payees’ concerned stand assessed. Mr. Choudhury quotes hon’ble apex court’s decision in (2018) 302 CTR 201(SC) holding CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company similar first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as a curative one having retrospective effect. The legislature had made the said amendment vide vide Finance Act 2010 w.e.f 01.04.2010 which has been retrospectively applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in PCIT vs. Tirupati Constructi…

M/S. SRS BUILDCON P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisrs Buildcon P. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Ward-Ii(1), Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Faridabad Pan: Aaics9912Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V K Jiwani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40a

…by the Financial Act 2010 to provision of section 40a(ia) of Act is retrospective in operation or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Kolkata Export Company ([2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 293 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 654 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 201 (SC) ) has held that Discussion:— 13. The dispute in the present case revolves around the fact that whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the IT Act is retrospective in nature so as to apply to the present case or not. If it is so, then the tax duly paid by the assessee on 01.08.2005 is w…