PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) , KOLKATA vs. NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

TDS) KOLKATA -Versus- NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 22nd July, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Additionally, this Court underscores that the primary obligation to deduct TDS rests with the payer at the time of making the payment or credit, regardless of whether the payee subsequently deducts TDS on their own downstream transactions. The legislative intent behind these provisions is to establish a robust mechanism for revenue collection at the source, thereby preventing tax evasion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

TDS certificate the amount received was Rs.5,56,88,817/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the respondent/assessee for the difference of Rs.3,74,85,859/-. The assessee explained that it has been receiving advances from its clients, a portion of which was spent on behalf of the client for counsels’ fees, stamp paper, court-fees stamp, payment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

TDS certificate the amount received was Rs.5,56,88,817/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the respondent/assessee for the difference of Rs.3,74,85,859/-. The assessee explained that it has been receiving advances from its clients, a portion of which was spent on behalf of the client for counsels’ fees, stamp paper, court-fees stamp, payment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -XX, KOLKATA vs. THE MAYFAIR HOSPITAL

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.5.2012 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 193/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. The Revenue Has Suggested The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Deleting The Addition Incurred By The Hospital For Doctor’S Charges, Pathology Charges, Doctor’S Fees & Commission Payment Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Read With Section 194 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961? Ii) Whether The Provision Can Exempt Those Deductors Who Make Payment To Its Clients Within A Previous Year But Not Comply With The Tds Provisions In Terms Of Chapter-Xvii-B Out Of Purview Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

addition incurred by the hospital for doctor’s charges, pathology charges, doctor’s fees and Commission payment under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? II) Whether the provision can exempt those deductors who make payment to its clients within a previous year but not comply with the TDS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

addition of Rs.1,49,54,059/- by holding that the same being liquidated damages received from the suppliers on account of delayed installation of machineries and delayed construction of 3 building was a capital receipt without examining the nature, specific terms and conditions of each of the contracts? (e) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in presuming

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. DEBABRATA BANERJEE

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 18Th July, 2025.

addition of Rs.84,14,786/-. The assessee challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, [CIT(A)] and the appeal was disposed of by the appellate authority who granted substantial relief to the assessee and also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the credit of advance tax of Rs.1

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition to be erroneous and has considered in detail the nature and expenses in respect of which the assessee was sought to be penalized for not 5 deducting the tax deducted at sources, holding that these expenses were in respect of the income accrued outside the territory for services rendered. With this finding the said question was rejected. While

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition to be erroneous and has considered in detail the nature and expenses in respect of which the assessee was sought to be penalized for not 5 deducting the tax deducted at sources, holding that these expenses were in respect of the income accrued outside the territory for services rendered. With this finding the said question was rejected. While

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed on the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1032/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “’(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs.50,000/- on account of depreciation without judging

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL SALE CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

TDS was also made and paid and evidence whereof was filed. The AO has also mentioned the voluminous papers were filed but none of the evidences have been controverted.” Further, the CIT(A) held that the assessing officer made an addition only on the basis of the statement of Shri Jindal and the same does not relate to the transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Income tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata [CIT(A)]. Though at the first blush it appears that the order passed by the CIT(A) is a well reasoned and elaborate order, on a closure scrutiny we find that substantial part of the order is verbatim extract of the assessment order, written submissions of the authorised representative of the assessee, a truncated portion

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. TAPAN KANTI ROY

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VS TAPAN KANTI ROY BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 11th March, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the appellant The Court: There is a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within