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

3) of the said Act. The first appellate authority by an order dated March 30, 2011 allowed the said appeal in part. By the said order the first appellate authority held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance of Rs.72,89,71,972/- and directed deletion of the amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer on such

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.

Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts of the amounts from the clients should have been routed by the assessee through his books of account. Since

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.

Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts of the amounts from the clients should have been routed by the assessee through his books of account. Since

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

13. Moreover, it is submitted that the recipients have included these reimbursements in their taxable incomes and have paid the applicable taxes, which negates any justification for disallowing these amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) of the said Act. ITAT 160 of 2024 -5- 14. The appellant contends that the disallowance upheld by the Tribunal is therefore arbitrary, erroneous

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

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

3 months as per 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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer stated that the modus operandi adopted by the assessee is typical and prevalent in this part of the country where black-money is being routed under the guise of unsecured loan. He branded the transactions to be accommodation entries and held them

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 3 , KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed, consequently the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: January 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant/Revenue Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Soumyajyoti Nandy, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th February, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No. 171/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration :-

13,19,24,685/- on a loan taken by the third party without considering that the assessee has failed to produce copy of the debit note raised by ICICI bank during the assessment proceedings which materials evidence has not been examined by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal