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 :

TDS for information technology expense, information technology expense, patent registration charges, advances written off, excise duty debited to profit and loss account, disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made for export commission, disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made to foreign parties, bogus purchases, liquidated damages, income tax interest expense, commission to non-executive directors, disallowance under Section

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

1% for collection expenses. Both the Cosmetics and Medicine Manufacturing Companies treated these reimbursements as income in their taxable accounts and deducted tax at source (TDS), wherever applicable, compliant with provisions of the said Act. 6. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer disallowed these reimbursed expenses under Section 40(a)(ia), holding that the appellant had failed to deduct TDS

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

1)(vii) of the Act for which the assessee ought to have deducted TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 12. Mr. Rai further contended that the first appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue regarding disallowance of amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by approaching the said issue from

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

1) of the Act. In response to such notices, the assessee’s authorised representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. With regard to the first issue, namely, the loss on derivative, the assessee claimed the loss arising from future option, loss on transaction entered on National Stock Exchange (NSE) as appeared in Form 10DB. As per the content of the said

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 94(7)(b) of the Act, had expired before the amendment was made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 in respect of the units of mutual fund under consideration except in the case of units of M/s. Reliance Vision Fund in which the assessee incurred loss of Rs. 16,53,820/- and the dividend received was Rs. 11

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

1 (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 6 of 14 ought to have been provided to the assessee. Further, it was contended that no addition could be made merely on the statement given by a third party without any additional evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer erred in treating all the 13 lenders as bogus when

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

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

section 68 of the Act cast an onus on any assessee to prove a loan transaction from the point of verifiability of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta propounded these principles way back in 1978 through the case of Shakar Industries reported in 114 ITR 689 (Cal). On this issue this

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.

1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel along with Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant/Department and Sri J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das and Sri Asit Kumar De, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. 2 2. This appeal was admitted by an order dated

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.

1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel along with Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant/Department and Sri J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das and Sri Asit Kumar De, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. 2 2. This appeal was admitted by an order dated